a tweet about politics
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1466128476310839297
None
Wed Dec 01 19:34:02 +0000 2021
CNNPolitics
<div>President Biden says "shelves are going to be stocked" for the holiday season https://t.co/p77wrVTi0O| created_at: Wed Dec 01 19:34:02 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 117 | quote_count: 7 | reply_count: 55 | retweet_count: 27 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en </div>
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1466128476310839297
None
Wed Dec 01 19:34:02 +0000 2021
CNNPolitics
President Biden says "shelves are going to be stocked" for the holiday season https://t.co/p77wrVTi0O| created_at: Wed Dec 01 19:34:02 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 117 | quote_count: 7 | reply_count: 55 | retweet_count: 27 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1466128476310839297
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1466011000742854659
None
Wed Dec 01 11:47:14 +0000 2021
benshapiro
<div>Chris Cuomo has been suspended by CNN. There is only path back to airtime on The Most Trusted Name In News™: spank it on a Zoom call with his colleagues.| created_at: Wed Dec 01 11:47:14 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 6327 | quote_count: 37 | reply_count: 160 | retweet_count: 407 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en </div>
Chris Cuomo has been suspended by CNN. There is only path back to airtime on The Most Trusted Name In News™: spank it on a Zoom call with his colleagues.| created_at: Wed Dec 01 11:47:14 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 6327 | quote_count: 37 | reply_count: 160 | retweet_count: 407 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1466011000742854659
https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1466068359091343363
None
Wed Dec 01 15:35:09 +0000 2021
RubinReport
<div>Imagine thinking Joe Biden is allowed to hold his own phone. https://t.co/fZ7nU0LHnF| created_at: Wed Dec 01 15:35:09 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 2395 | quote_count: 11 | reply_count: 143 | retweet_count: 182 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en </div>
https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1466068359091343363
None
Wed Dec 01 15:35:09 +0000 2021
RubinReport
Imagine thinking Joe Biden is allowed to hold his own phone. https://t.co/fZ7nU0LHnF| created_at: Wed Dec 01 15:35:09 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 2395 | quote_count: 11 | reply_count: 143 | retweet_count: 182 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en
https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1466068359091343363
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1465785447876079619
None
Tue Nov 30 20:50:58 +0000 2021
maddow
<div>"Newly released records show the 'election review' team hired by Republicans is sharing office space with a nonprofit group and law firm that have been at the forefront of efforts to overturn the presidential results in Wisconsin and elsewhere..."
https://t.co/BbkLASnrjb| created_at: Tue Nov 30 20:50:58 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 1639 | quote_count: 41 | reply_count: 108 | retweet_count: 981 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en </div>
"Newly released records show the 'election review' team hired by Republicans is sharing office space with a nonprofit group and law firm that have been at the forefront of efforts to overturn the presidential results in Wisconsin and elsewhere..."
https://t.co/BbkLASnrjb| created_at: Tue Nov 30 20:50:58 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 1639 | quote_count: 41 | reply_count: 108 | retweet_count: 981 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1465785447876079619
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1465461902881009664
None
Mon Nov 29 23:25:19 +0000 2021
maddow
<div>"In Michigan’s third-largest county, Macomb, Republicans appointed to the canvassing board a GOP poll challenger who tweeted after the 2020 election that Trump should suspend the electoral college and have 'military tribunals' investigate election fraud."
https://t.co/T6PmN13Aue| created_at: Mon Nov 29 23:25:19 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 1474 | quote_count: 68 | reply_count: 162 | retweet_count: 855 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en </div>
"In Michigan’s third-largest county, Macomb, Republicans appointed to the canvassing board a GOP poll challenger who tweeted after the 2020 election that Trump should suspend the electoral college and have 'military tribunals' investigate election fraud."
https://t.co/T6PmN13Aue| created_at: Mon Nov 29 23:25:19 +0000 2021 | favorite_count: 1474 | quote_count: 68 | reply_count: 162 | retweet_count: 855 | is_quote_status: False | retweeted: False | lang: en
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1465461902881009664
https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2021-03-24/twitter-turns-15-trump-obama-essential-politics
Essential Politics: Twitter unleashed a 'firehose' we can't turn off. - Los Angeles Times
2021-03-24
Laura Blasey
<div><div> <p><i>This is the March 24, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? <a href="https://www.latimes.com/newsletters/essential-politics">Sign up</a> to get it in your inbox three times a week.</i></p><p>The first-ever tweet was remarkably benign. On March 21, 2006, Twitter chief executive and co-founder <b>Jack Dorsey</b> tweeted a simple message to no one: “just setting up my twttr.”</p><p>Twitter wouldn’t go live to the public for months. It would be years before then-<b>President Trump</b> introduced policy, set off diplomatic crises and fired staffers — all by tweets, a first for a president. In 2006, early critics were dismissing the platform as narcissistic and frivolous. How much can you really say with 140 characters? </p><p>Plenty, it turns out. </p><p>What we understand now is that social media upsets the traditional relationship between leaders and their voters, compressing the distance and removing the filters between them. </p><p>For better or worse, decisions that shape policy and politics can be influenced by retweets, and hashtags can launch movements (think #MeToo). Members of Congress like Georgia Republican and conspiracy theorist Rep. <b>Marjorie Taylor Greene</b> have risen to national prominence in part through their posts. Campaigns now hire staff to manage their social media.</p><div> </div><p>It’s a new American playbook <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-05-13/democrats-wrote-the-playbook-for-digital-organizing-so-why-is-trump-running-circles-around-them">embraced by both parties</a>. On Twitter’s 15th birthday, we ask: Why is the platform so popular with the political establishment?</p><p>I invited three colleagues to discuss Twitter’s appeal and legacy. Politics reporter <b>Seema Mehta</b> has <a href="https://www.latimes.com/people/seema-mehta">covered presidential campaigns for The Times</a> for more than a decade, including 2020. <b>Matt Pearce</b> is also fresh off covering the 2020 election and now writes <a href="https://www.latimes.com/people/matt-pearce">about internet culture and podcasting</a>. And <b>Sam Dean</b> is a reporter on The Times’ <a href="https://www.latimes.com/people/sam-dean">technology team</a>. </p><p>Our conversation follows. It has been edited for clarity and condensed for length. </p><p><b>LAURA: In 15 years, Twitter has grown into a massive cultural presence, but it didn’t start that way. When did you first take notice of Twitter as a platform for politics?</b></p><p><b>SEEMA:</b> During the 2010 California governor’s and senate races — the campaigns were using Twitter to reach out to voters, to promote their policy proposals and to try to shape the narrative about the races. At first I thought I would be a lurker and not really use Twitter that much. Tens of thousands of tweets later, that certainly has not proven to be true!</p><p><b>MATT:</b> My first experience with Twitter as a real political force was during the Arab Spring in 2011, when I was covering the Egyptian uprising and saw how activists were using the space to rally against the regime. It echoed how Occupy Wall Street activists were using the platform in the U.S. It was an insurgent format.</p><p><b>SAM:</b> Right, exactly — I remember the Arab Spring being the moment when “Twitter as politics” really took on steam, Twitter as something that might be more legitimate than just anonymous eggs sniping from the sidelines. Twitter as a company has also really leaned on that image in the past decade — as a righteous cause — at the core of its business model (which is ultimately just getting us hooked on scrolling and selling ads.) </p><p><b>SEEMA: </b>The 2012 presidential campaign was when I really began using it heavily. I was covering the Romney campaign at the time, and what struck me was how the campaign used to monitor the tweets of the reporters covering him, to see and respond in real time to how the narrative was developing. They didn’t have to wait until our stories posted or were aired.</p><p><b>LAURA: What about this platform is so attractive? Far more of the country spends its time on Facebook, for example, but lawmakers seem to have this strong affinity for Twitter.</b></p><p><b>MATT: </b>Information is one of the most important currencies in politics (along with another currency, the U.S. dollar), and Twitter is an information firehose. When you’re logged in, you’re jacked into the Matrix.</p><p><b>SAM: </b>I think there’s also something to the purity of the format that helps things break through. On Facebook, the default format is an image, or a link to an article, whereas on Twitter a clear message can really stand out without being crowded by baby photos and free couches.</p><p>Twitter is a lot smaller than Facebook or Instagram — Twitter has 192 million daily users worldwide, while Snapchat has 265 million, Instagram has more than 500 million, and Facebook has an incredible 1.85 billion. But if you drill down on the American media landscape, Twitter has a much larger potential audience than cable news. </p><p>About 37 million Americans are on Twitter daily, according to the company’s financial reports, whereas the primetime news viewership of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC combined barely tops 10 million each night. Most Twitter users are siloed into their information bubbles, but when a tweet goes truly viral — as tweets from politicians and especially the former president often did — the reach is huge, and immediate. </p><p><b>SEEMA: </b>While a lot of “real people” aren’t on Twitter, the political world is. So you know your message is being heard by reporters, TV bookers, etc.</p><p><b>LAURA: That kind of powerful access can go both ways. Sometimes it’s useful, but there can be major offline political consequences, too, as we’ve learned in the past four years. Do you all feel like offline politics have changed?</b></p><p><b>SEEMA:</b> I fear that it can create groupthink. And also that people can lose sight of how Twitter isn’t necessarily reflective of how voters feel.</p><p><b>MATT:</b> One of the wildest things you can do as a journalist is spend a lot of time absorbing conventional wisdom on Twitter and then go interview a bunch of voters at a campaign event. Totally different worlds.</p><p><b>SAM:</b> This might be taking too much of a software-as-destiny approach, but there is something to the interactivity and group harassment that you can make happen on Twitter that seems to have flowed back into the real world. </p><p>Before, if a politician was on talk radio or a TV news show, the fans at home could pump their fists and contemplate grinding their political enemies into dust, but they couldn’t actually all show up on someone’s Twitter feed in that moment and start harassing them. The ability of politicians and political actors to give people something immediate to do, that forms a stronger group identity around dunking and DMing and harassing people off the internet. I think that has added a certain bloodthirstiness.</p><p><b>LAURA: Right, and then there’s a figure like Trump — a president who embraced both the online and offline. He found a strong base of voter support, but was also deeply tied to Twitter.</b></p><p><b>MATT:</b> Twitter, in terms of followers and engagement, rewards personalities. And there was no bigger personality than Trump. Compare that to <b>President Biden</b>, who ran one of the lowest-key presidential campaigns ever, and who won with a record number of votes.</p><p><b>SEEMA:</b> President Trump was incredibly effective at using Twitter to bypass the media and speak directly to his supporters. But it’s also dangerous. Because he was able to spread information that was not true — like that the election was stolen — and there was no fact-checking until Twitter eventually kicked him off the platform.</p><p><b>SAM:</b> One of my favorite takes (read on Twitter, of course) on the Trump rhetorical style was that he had the cadences and instincts of a borscht belt comedian working for a right-wing tabloid. And one of the first professional communities besides journalists to really lean into Twitter were comedians. And I think Trump’s way of talking and thinking fell right in the sweet spot of what works on Twitter. But as Seema points out, something “working” in a medium doesn’t mean it’s working for … society. Which is why Twitter eventually kicked him off!</p><p><b>LAURA: Speaking of Trump’s ban, how do you all see Twitter’s new approach playing out? After years of criticism, they’ve finally introduced new moderation standards, but is this a situation they can still control after 15 years — and do they even want to? After banning Trump from Twitter, Dorsey said he worried that precedent <a href="https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510776386580482">“will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet.”</a></b></p><p><b>SEEMA:</b> I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle.</p><p><b>SAM:</b> The company was really flailing in the days leading up to the election and then around the storming of the Capitol on Jan 6. I had to track the shifting terms of service and flagging/fact-checking/deleting/spread-limiting policies, and the overall picture was of a company tying itself into knots to avoid making a serious decision about the risk that politicians like Trump posed to human lives and the basic rule of law in the country.</p><p>The company will say that new standards have been put in place, but it’s hard to know how that will play out when the rubber hits the road, and another fire breathing, lie-spreading public figure amasses millions of followers on the platform. I think the ability to control is there, at least in very high-profile cases. It is just a question of whether they want to.</p><p><b>MATT: </b>It says something about Twitter’s power that as soon as they banned the president, our political discourse suddenly felt a lot different. Which is unsettling. The president should be able to speak. At the same time, the president shouldn’t be encouraging his followers to thwart a free and fair election. It’s a mess.</p><div> <p>Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times</p> <p>Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. <u><a href="https://checkout2.latimes.com/MTRDigitalWB2?pid=6712">Become a subscriber.</a></u></p> </div><h2>A very brief history of politics and Twitter</h2>
<p><b>President Obama</b> is often credited as the first online president. His use of social media was so prolific, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_use_by_Barack_Obama">it has its own Wikipedia page</a>. </p><p>He joined Twitter as @BarackObama in March 2007, and <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3ABarackObama)%20until%3A2007-06-15%20since%3A2007-03-01&amp;src=typed_query&amp;f=live">sent what are likely his first tweets that May</a>. Obama was the first president to have a Twitter account and his administration marked the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/05/17/introducing-potus-presidents-official-twitter-account">launch of the official @POTUS account</a> on May 18, 2015, setting the precedent for administrations to come.</p><p>To date, Obama’s @BarackObama account remains the most followed account on the platform, with <a href="https://socialblade.com/twitter/">more than 130 million followers</a>. </p><p>But Obama wasn’t the first major U.S. politician to embrace Twitter. Determining that kind of milestone with certainty is difficult on a platform with so much traffic, but one thing is certain: Former Sen. <b>John Edwards</b>, the disgraced North Carolinian who was Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee and a two-time presidential candidate, has Obama beat. </p><p>A CQ Weekly story from April 7, 2007, reports that Edwards thanked well-wishers via Twitter for their support amid his wife’s cancer recurrence. At the time, Edwards was considered “far and away the leading adopter of technology in either major party’s presidential field.” <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/04/02/cq_2499.html">The story is a delightful time capsule</a>, harkening back to an era when the platform had to be described as “the real-time messaging service known as Twitter,” and “tweet” wasn’t yet a verb. </p><p>Twitter <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2009/not-playing-ball.html">introduced account verification in 2009</a> — name-checking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and <b>Gavin Newsom</b> in the process — to confront a troubling trend of impersonation claims and a lawsuit. Starting in 2010, the Library of Congress worked with the company to archive every tweet, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/26/573609499/library-of-congress-will-no-longer-archive-every-tweet">only to scale back to major events and figures</a> due to sheer volume. </p><p> A 2020 Pew Research Center analysis found members of Congress dramatically scaled up their use of Twitter <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/16/1-the-congressional-social-media-landscape/">in the second half of the 2010s</a>. The average number of tweets the typical member of Congress posted each month nearly doubled between 2016 to 2020.</p><p>Government officials have had to reckon with grass-roots political movements built on tweets. #BlackLivesMatter <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/08/15/the-hashtag-blacklivesmatter-emerges-social-activism-on-twitter/">found a home on Twitter</a> and so did #MeToo, which <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/11/how-social-media-users-have-discussed-sexual-harassment-since-metoo-went-viral/">exploded into prominence in 2017</a>. The platform also helped fuel far-right extremism, conspiracy theories like QAnon and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hc-gamer-gate-controversy-sl-storylink.html">harassment for political ends</a>.</p><h2>The view from Washington</h2>
<p>— For the second time in a week, Biden’s campaign to highlight pandemic relief benefits has been overshadowed by a mass shooting, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-03-23/a-second-mass-killing-forces-a-detour-in-bidens-pandemic-relief-victory-tour">thrusting the issue of gun control to the fore</a>, Eli Stokols writes. He called on Congress to act, but <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-03-23/democrats-gun-control-legislation-congress-complicit-violence">it’s not clear what Biden or Democrats can do</a>, Sarah D. Wire reports.</p><p>— From Anita Chabria: Experts on extremism are warning about a troubling shift in the right-wing QAnon movement <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-23/qanon-conspiracy-evolves-new-world-order-china-jewish-people">toward a new vein of conspiracy</a> that blends anti-Chinese and anti-Jewish tropes with fears of vaccines and a global plot to take over the world.</p><p>— Arizona’s Sen. <b>Kyrsten Sinema</b> has built a reputation as a maverick conservative Democrat. But as Melanie Mason writes, she’s now part of the majority ruling party for the first time in her career, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-03-22/kyrsten-sinema-arizona">a test of her approach</a>.</p><p>— <b>Alex Padilla</b> is the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate, Wire writes. Can he help <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-03-24/can-californias-first-latino-senator-break-washingtons-gridlock-on-immigration-reform">break Washington’s gridlock on immigration reform</a>?</p><p>— Border crossings from Mexico are surging amid rumors that the Biden administration will be more lenient. Molly Hennessey-Fiske <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-22/hundreds-of-migrants-cross-this-stretch-of-the-rio-grande-nightly">spoke to migrants</a> and reports that an overwhelmed Border Patrol is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-03-22/texas-border-patrol-migrants">releasing some without court paperwork</a>, stirring confusion. </p><p>— Biden on Monday dispatched a high-level team to Mexico and Central America to start <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-03-22/biden-officials-immigration-mexico-guatemala">negotiating a “humane” solution to the growing crisis</a>, Tracy Wilkinson reports.</p><h2>The view from California</h2>
<p>— The latest on the recall effort: A critical question is whether another Democrat jumps into the race to replace Newsom, and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-03-22/democrats-newsom-recall-challenger">many political experts believe it is inevitable</a>, Mehta writes. </p><p>— With <b>Xavier Becerra</b> confirmed as Biden’s Health and Human Services secretary, Newsom must choose a new California attorney general. Patrick McGreevy takes <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-22/who-newsom-pick-replace-becerra-california-ag">a look at the likely candidates</a>.</p><p>— A Biden initiative that would pour money into repairing America’s decrepit infrastructure <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-22/california-agencies-biden-infrastructure-money">could net California a major windfall</a> — if it gains traction, Ralph Vartabedian writes.</p><p>— Affluent suburbanites seem unlikely revolutionaries. But Orange County is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-21/orange-county-far-right-trump-covid-19">seeing a resurgence in right-wing extremism</a> at a time when major demographic shifts have turned the region from a deep-red bastion into a more racially and politically diverse community.</p> </div></div>||||I|||| * News
 + Home Page
 + California
 + Election 2024
 + Housing & Homelessness
 + Politics
 + Science & Medicine
 + World & Nation
 * Business
 + Artificial Intelligence
 + Autos
 + Jobs, Labor & Workplace
 + Real Estate
 + Technology and the Internet
 * California
 + California Politics
 + Earthquakes
 + Education
 + Housing & Homelessness
 + L.A. Politics
 + Mental Health
 * Climate & Environment
 + Global Warming
 + Water & Drought
 * Entertainment & Arts
 + Arts
 + Books
 + Stand-Up Comedy
 + Company Town
 + The Envelope (Awards)
 + Movies
 + Music
 + Television
 + Things to Do
 * De Los
 * En Español
 * Food
 + 101 best restaurants in L.A.
 + Recipes
 * Image
 * Lifestyle
 + Health & Wellness
 + Home Design
 + L.A. Affairs
 + Plants
 + Travel & Experiences
 + Weekend
 + Things to Do in L.A.
 * Obituaries
 * Opinion
 + Editorials
 + Letters to the Editor
 + Op-Ed
 + Short Docs
 * Sports
 + Angels
 + Angel City FC
 + Chargers
 + Clippers
 + Dodgers
 + Ducks
 + Galaxy
 + High School Sports
 + Kings
 + Lakers
 + Olympics
 + USC
 + UCLA
 + Rams
 + Sparks
 * Times Everywhere
 + 404 by L.A. Times
 + Facebook
 + Instagram
 + LA Times Today
 + Newsletters
 + Photography
 + Podcasts
 + Short Docs
 + TikTok
 + Threads
 + Video
 + YouTube
 + X (Twitter)
 * For Subscribers
 * All Sections
 * _________________
 * eNewspaper
 * About Us
 + About Us
 + Archives
 + Company News
 + eNewspaper
 + For the Record
 + Got a Tip?
 + L.A. Times Careers
 + L.A. Times Store
 + L.A. Times Studios
 + News App: Apple IOS
 + News App: Google Play
 + Newsroom Directory
 + Public Affairs
 + Rights, Clearance & Permissions
 + Short Docs
 * Advertising
 + Place an Ad
 + Classifieds
 + Coupons
 + People on the Move
 + Find/Post Jobs
 + Local Ads Marketplace
 + Media Kit: Why the L.A. Times?
 + Hot Property Sections
 + Place an Open House
 + Sotheby’s International Realty
 * Bestcovery
 + Compare
 * B2B Publishing
 * Business Visionaries
 * Hot Property
 * Crossword & Games
 * L.A. Times Events
 * L.A. Times Store
 * Subscriptions
 + Manage Subscription
 + EZPAY
 + Delivery Issue
 + eNewspaper
 + Students & Educators
 + Subscribe
 + Subscriber Terms
 + Gift Subscription Terms
 * Special Supplements
 + Escapes. Travel. Adventure (ETA)
 + Healthy Living
 + Las Vegas Guide
 + Philanthropy
 Copyright © 2024, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | CA Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Sections
 Tap to enable a layout that focuses on the article.
 Focus mode
 Show Search
 Search Query Submit Search
 Advertisement
 Politics

 Essential Politics: Twitter is 15. How 140 characters unleashed a ‘firehose’ we can’t turn off

 Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey testifies in 2018 before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a hearing on foreign influence operations and their use of social media.
 (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

 By Laura Blasey Multiplatform Editor, Newsletters
 March 24, 2021 6:23 AM PT
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * Show more sharing options
 Share Close extra sharing options
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * LinkedIn
 * Email
 * Copy Link URL Copied!
 * Print

 This is the March 24, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.

 The first-ever tweet was remarkably benign. On March 21, 2006, Twitter chief executive and co-founder Jack Dorsey tweeted a simple message to no one: “just setting up my twttr.”

 Twitter wouldn’t go live to the public for months. It would be years before then-President Trump introduced policy, set off diplomatic crises and fired staffers — all by tweets, a first for a president. In 2006, early critics were dismissing the platform as narcissistic and frivolous. How much can you really say with 140 characters?

 Plenty, it turns out.

 What we understand now is that social media upsets the traditional relationship between leaders and their voters, compressing the distance and removing the filters between them.

 Advertisement

 For better or worse, decisions that shape policy and politics can be influenced by retweets, and hashtags can launch movements (think #MeToo). Members of Congress like Georgia Republican and conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene have risen to national prominence in part through their posts. Campaigns now hire staff to manage their social media.

 Newsletter

 Get our L.A. Times Politics newsletter

 The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.

 Enter email address
 Sign Me Up

 You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

 It’s a new American playbook embraced by both parties. On Twitter’s 15th birthday, we ask: Why is the platform so popular with the political establishment?

 I invited three colleagues to discuss Twitter’s appeal and legacy. Politics reporter Seema Mehta has covered presidential campaigns for The Times for more than a decade, including 2020. Matt Pearce is also fresh off covering the 2020 election and now writes about internet culture and podcasting. And Sam Dean is a reporter on The Times’ technology team.

 Our conversation follows. It has been edited for clarity and condensed for length.

 just setting up my twttr

 — jack (@jack) March 21, 2006

 LAURA: In 15 years, Twitter has grown into a massive cultural presence, but it didn’t start that way. When did you first take notice of Twitter as a platform for politics?

 SEEMA: During the 2010 California governor’s and senate races — the campaigns were using Twitter to reach out to voters, to promote their policy proposals and to try to shape the narrative about the races. At first I thought I would be a lurker and not really use Twitter that much. Tens of thousands of tweets later, that certainly has not proven to be true!

 MATT: My first experience with Twitter as a real political force was during the Arab Spring in 2011, when I was covering the Egyptian uprising and saw how activists were using the space to rally against the regime. It echoed how Occupy Wall Street activists were using the platform in the U.S. It was an insurgent format.

 Advertisement

 SAM: Right, exactly — I remember the Arab Spring being the moment when “Twitter as politics” really took on steam, Twitter as something that might be more legitimate than just anonymous eggs sniping from the sidelines. Twitter as a company has also really leaned on that image in the past decade — as a righteous cause — at the core of its business model (which is ultimately just getting us hooked on scrolling and selling ads.)

 SEEMA: The 2012 presidential campaign was when I really began using it heavily. I was covering the Romney campaign at the time, and what struck me was how the campaign used to monitor the tweets of the reporters covering him, to see and respond in real time to how the narrative was developing. They didn’t have to wait until our stories posted or were aired.

 LAURA: What about this platform is so attractive? Far more of the country spends its time on Facebook, for example, but lawmakers seem to have this strong affinity for Twitter.

 MATT: Information is one of the most important currencies in politics (along with another currency, the U.S. dollar), and Twitter is an information firehose. When you’re logged in, you’re jacked into the Matrix.

 SAM: I think there’s also something to the purity of the format that helps things break through. On Facebook, the default format is an image, or a link to an article, whereas on Twitter a clear message can really stand out without being crowded by baby photos and free couches.

 Twitter is a lot smaller than Facebook or Instagram — Twitter has 192 million daily users worldwide, while Snapchat has 265 million, Instagram has more than 500 million, and Facebook has an incredible 1.85 billion. But if you drill down on the American media landscape, Twitter has a much larger potential audience than cable news.

 Advertisement

 About 37 million Americans are on Twitter daily, according to the company’s financial reports, whereas the primetime news viewership of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC combined barely tops 10 million each night. Most Twitter users are siloed into their information bubbles, but when a tweet goes truly viral — as tweets from politicians and especially the former president often did — the reach is huge, and immediate.

 SEEMA: While a lot of “real people” aren’t on Twitter, the political world is. So you know your message is being heard by reporters, TV bookers, etc.

 LAURA: That kind of powerful access can go both ways. Sometimes it’s useful, but there can be major offline political consequences, too, as we’ve learned in the past four years. Do you all feel like offline politics have changed?

 SEEMA: I fear that it can create groupthink. And also that people can lose sight of how Twitter isn’t necessarily reflective of how voters feel.

 MATT: One of the wildest things you can do as a journalist is spend a lot of time absorbing conventional wisdom on Twitter and then go interview a bunch of voters at a campaign event. Totally different worlds.

 SAM: This might be taking too much of a software-as-destiny approach, but there is something to the interactivity and group harassment that you can make happen on Twitter that seems to have flowed back into the real world.

 Advertisement

 Before, if a politician was on talk radio or a TV news show, the fans at home could pump their fists and contemplate grinding their political enemies into dust, but they couldn’t actually all show up on someone’s Twitter feed in that moment and start harassing them. The ability of politicians and political actors to give people something immediate to do, that forms a stronger group identity around dunking and DMing and harassing people off the internet. I think that has added a certain bloodthirstiness.

 LAURA: Right, and then there’s a figure like Trump — a president who embraced both the online and offline. He found a strong base of voter support, but was also deeply tied to Twitter.

 MATT: Twitter, in terms of followers and engagement, rewards personalities. And there was no bigger personality than Trump. Compare that to President Biden, who ran one of the lowest-key presidential campaigns ever, and who won with a record number of votes.

 SEEMA: President Trump was incredibly effective at using Twitter to bypass the media and speak directly to his supporters. But it’s also dangerous. Because he was able to spread information that was not true — like that the election was stolen — and there was no fact-checking until Twitter eventually kicked him off the platform.

 SAM: One of my favorite takes (read on Twitter, of course) on the Trump rhetorical style was that he had the cadences and instincts of a borscht belt comedian working for a right-wing tabloid. And one of the first professional communities besides journalists to really lean into Twitter were comedians. And I think Trump’s way of talking and thinking fell right in the sweet spot of what works on Twitter. But as Seema points out, something “working” in a medium doesn’t mean it’s working for … society. Which is why Twitter eventually kicked him off!

 LAURA: Speaking of Trump’s ban, how do you all see Twitter’s new approach playing out? After years of criticism, they’ve finally introduced new moderation standards, but is this a situation they can still control after 15 years — and do they even want to? After banning Trump from Twitter, Dorsey said he worried that precedent “will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet.”

 Advertisement

 SEEMA: I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle.

 SAM: The company was really flailing in the days leading up to the election and then around the storming of the Capitol on Jan 6. I had to track the shifting terms of service and flagging/fact-checking/deleting/spread-limiting policies, and the overall picture was of a company tying itself into knots to avoid making a serious decision about the risk that politicians like Trump posed to human lives and the basic rule of law in the country.

 The company will say that new standards have been put in place, but it’s hard to know how that will play out when the rubber hits the road, and another fire breathing, lie-spreading public figure amasses millions of followers on the platform. I think the ability to control is there, at least in very high-profile cases. It is just a question of whether they want to.

 MATT: It says something about Twitter’s power that as soon as they banned the president, our political discourse suddenly felt a lot different. Which is unsettling. The president should be able to speak. At the same time, the president shouldn’t be encouraging his followers to thwart a free and fair election. It’s a mess.

 Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times

 Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Become a subscriber.

 A very brief history of politics and Twitter

 President Obama is often credited as the first online president. His use of social media was so prolific, it has its own Wikipedia page.

 He joined Twitter as @BarackObama in March 2007, and sent what are likely his first tweets that May. Obama was the first president to have a Twitter account and his administration marked the launch of the official @POTUS account on May 18, 2015, setting the precedent for administrations to come.

 Advertisement

 Hello, Twitter! It's Barack. Really! Six years in, they're finally giving me my own account.

 — President Obama (@POTUS44) May 18, 2015

 To date, Obama’s @BarackObama account remains the most followed account on the platform, with more than 130 million followers.

 But Obama wasn’t the first major U.S. politician to embrace Twitter. Determining that kind of milestone with certainty is difficult on a platform with so much traffic, but one thing is certain: Former Sen. John Edwards, the disgraced North Carolinian who was Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee and a two-time presidential candidate, has Obama beat.

 A CQ Weekly story from April 7, 2007, reports that Edwards thanked well-wishers via Twitter for their support amid his wife’s cancer recurrence. At the time, Edwards was considered “far and away the leading adopter of technology in either major party’s presidential field.” The story is a delightful time capsule, harkening back to an era when the platform had to be described as “the real-time messaging service known as Twitter,” and “tweet” wasn’t yet a verb.

 Twitter introduced account verification in 2009 — name-checking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Gavin Newsom in the process — to confront a troubling trend of impersonation claims and a lawsuit. Starting in 2010, the Library of Congress worked with the company to archive every tweet, only to scale back to major events and figures due to sheer volume.

 A 2020 Pew Research Center analysis found members of Congress dramatically scaled up their use of Twitter in the second half of the 2010s. The average number of tweets the typical member of Congress posted each month nearly doubled between 2016 to 2020.

 Advertisement

 Government officials have had to reckon with grass-roots political movements built on tweets. #BlackLivesMatter found a home on Twitter and so did #MeToo, which exploded into prominence in 2017. The platform also helped fuel far-right extremism, conspiracy theories like QAnon and harassment for political ends.

 The view from Washington

 — For the second time in a week, Biden’s campaign to highlight pandemic relief benefits has been overshadowed by a mass shooting, thrusting the issue of gun control to the fore, Eli Stokols writes. He called on Congress to act, but it’s not clear what Biden or Democrats can do, Sarah D. Wire reports.

 — From Anita Chabria: Experts on extremism are warning about a troubling shift in the right-wing QAnon movement toward a new vein of conspiracy that blends anti-Chinese and anti-Jewish tropes with fears of vaccines and a global plot to take over the world.

 — Arizona’s Sen. Kyrsten Sinema has built a reputation as a maverick conservative Democrat. But as Melanie Mason writes, she’s now part of the majority ruling party for the first time in her career, a test of her approach.

 — Alex Padilla is the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate, Wire writes. Can he help break Washington’s gridlock on immigration reform?

 — Border crossings from Mexico are surging amid rumors that the Biden administration will be more lenient. Molly Hennessey-Fiske spoke to migrants and reports that an overwhelmed Border Patrol is releasing some without court paperwork, stirring confusion.

 Advertisement

 — Biden on Monday dispatched a high-level team to Mexico and Central America to start negotiating a “humane” solution to the growing crisis, Tracy Wilkinson reports.

 The view from California

 — The latest on the recall effort: A critical question is whether another Democrat jumps into the race to replace Newsom, and many political experts believe it is inevitable, Mehta writes.

 — With Xavier Becerra confirmed as Biden’s Health and Human Services secretary, Newsom must choose a new California attorney general. Patrick McGreevy takes a look at the likely candidates.

 — A Biden initiative that would pour money into repairing America’s decrepit infrastructure could net California a major windfall — if it gains traction, Ralph Vartabedian writes.

 — Affluent suburbanites seem unlikely revolutionaries. But Orange County is seeing a resurgence in right-wing extremism at a time when major demographic shifts have turned the region from a deep-red bastion into a more racially and politically diverse community.

 Stay in touch

 Keep up with breaking news on our Politics page. And are you following us on Twitter at @latimespolitics?

 Did someone forward you this? Sign up here to get Essential Politics in your inbox.

 Until next time, send your comments, suggestions and news tips to politics@latimes.com.

 Advertisement
 Politics
 Newsletter

 Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

 Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.

 Enter email address
 Sign Me Up

 You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

 Laura Blasey

 Follow Us

 * Twitter
 * Instagram
 * Email
 * Facebook

 Laura Blasey is a multiplatform editor for newsletters. She joined the Los Angeles Times in 2019 and is based in Washington, D.C. Previously, she worked at Newsday on Long Island, where she covered trending stories and produced audio for smart home devices.

 More From the Los Angeles Times

 * Politics

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he has qualified for California’s presidential ballot

 * Politics

 Judge holds Trump in contempt, fines him $9,000 and raises threat of jail

 * Opinion

 Opinion: California’s budget deficit will force difficult cuts. This one should be the easiest

 April 30, 2024

 * Politics

 Will AI deepfakes and robocalls upset the 2024 election?

 April 30, 2024

 Advertisement

 Most Read

 1. Police swarm Cal Poly Humboldt, arresting at least 25 and ending weeklong siege over Gaza war

 2. More student loan forgiveness available, but April 30 deadline looms

 3. For Subscribers

 California housing crisis so bad once-modest towns have become ‘million-dollar cities’

 4. Monthly payments of $1,000 could get thousands of homeless people off the streets, researchers say

 5. High-ranking L.A. prosecutor booked on felony charges, released on $50,000 bond

 Advertisement
 Advertisement
 Advertisement
 Advertisement
 Advertisement

 Subscribe for unlimited access
 Site Map

 Follow Us

 * Twitter
 * Instagram
 * YouTube
 * Facebook
 * 
 + eNewspaper
 + Coupons
 + Find/Post Jobs
 + Place an Ad
 + Media Kit: Why the L. A. Times?
 + Bestcovery

 * MORE FROM THE L.A. TIMES

 + Crossword
 + Obituaries
 + Recipes
 + L.A. Times Compare
 + L.A. Times Store
 + Wine Club
 + About/Contact
 + For the Record
 + L.A. Times Careers
 + Manage Subscription
 + Reprints and Permissions
 + Site Map
 Copyright © 2024, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | CA Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
This is the March 24, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.  The first-ever tweet was remarkably benign. On March 21, 2006, Twitter chief executive and co-founder Jack Dorsey tweeted a simple message to no one: “just setting up my twttr.” Twitter wouldn’t go live to the public for months. It would be years before then-President Trump introduced policy, set off diplomatic crises and fired staffers — all by tweets, a first for a president. In 2006, early critics were dismissing the platform as narcissistic and frivolous. How much can you really say with 140 characters?  Plenty, it turns out.  What we understand now is that social media upsets the traditional relationship between leaders and their voters, compressing the distance and removing the filters between them.  For better or worse, decisions that shape policy and politics can be influenced by retweets, and hashtags can launch movements (think #MeToo). Members of Congress like Georgia Republican and conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene have risen to national prominence in part through their posts. Campaigns now hire staff to manage their social media.   It’s a new American playbook embraced by both parties. On Twitter’s 15th birthday, we ask: Why is the platform so popular with the political establishment? I invited three colleagues to discuss Twitter’s appeal and legacy. Politics reporter Seema Mehta has covered presidential campaigns for The Times for more than a decade, including 2020. Matt Pearce is also fresh off covering the 2020 election and now writes about internet culture and podcasting. And Sam Dean is a reporter on The Times’ technology team.  Our conversation follows. It has been edited for clarity and condensed for length.   LAURA: In 15 years, Twitter has grown into a massive cultural presence, but it didn’t start that way. When did you first take notice of Twitter as a platform for politics?   SEEMA: During the 2010 California governor’s and senate races — the campaigns were using Twitter to reach out to voters, to promote their policy proposals and to try to shape the narrative about the races. At first I thought I would be a lurker and not really use Twitter that much. Tens of thousands of tweets later, that certainly has not proven to be true!  MATT: My first experience with Twitter as a real political force was during the Arab Spring in 2011, when I was covering the Egyptian uprising and saw how activists were using the space to rally against the regime. It echoed how Occupy Wall Street activists were using the platform in the U.S. It was an insurgent format.  SAM: Right, exactly — I remember the Arab Spring being the moment when “Twitter as politics” really took on steam, Twitter as something that might be more legitimate than just anonymous eggs sniping from the sidelines. Twitter as a company has also really leaned on that image in the past decade — as a righteous cause — at the core of its business model (which is ultimately just getting us hooked on scrolling and selling ads.)   SEEMA: The 2012 presidential campaign was when I really began using it heavily. I was covering the Romney campaign at the time, and what struck me was how the campaign used to monitor the tweets of the reporters covering him, to see and respond in real time to how the narrative was developing. They didn’t have to wait until our stories posted or were aired.  LAURA: What about this platform is so attractive? Far more of the country spends its time on Facebook, for example, but lawmakers seem to have this strong affinity for Twitter.   MATT: Information is one of the most important currencies in politics (along with another currency, the U.S. dollar), and Twitter is an information firehose. When you’re logged in, you’re jacked into the Matrix.  SAM: I think there’s also something to the purity of the format that helps things break through. On Facebook, the default format is an image, or a link to an article, whereas on Twitter a clear message can really stand out without being crowded by baby photos and free couches. Twitter is a lot smaller than Facebook or Instagram — Twitter has 192 million daily users worldwide, while Snapchat has 265 million, Instagram has more than 500 million, and Facebook has an incredible 1.85 billion. But if you drill down on the American media landscape, Twitter has a much larger potential audience than cable news.  About 37 million Americans are on Twitter daily, according to the company’s financial reports, whereas the primetime news viewership of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC combined barely tops 10 million each night. Most Twitter users are siloed into their information bubbles, but when a tweet goes truly viral — as tweets from politicians and especially the former president often did — the reach is huge, and immediate.   SEEMA: While a lot of “real people” aren’t on Twitter, the political world is. So you know your message is being heard by reporters, TV bookers, etc.  LAURA: That kind of powerful access can go both ways. Sometimes it’s useful, but there can be major offline political consequences, too, as we’ve learned in the past four years. Do you all feel like offline politics have changed?   SEEMA: I fear that it can create groupthink. And also that people can lose sight of how Twitter isn’t necessarily reflective of how voters feel.  MATT: One of the wildest things you can do as a journalist is spend a lot of time absorbing conventional wisdom on Twitter and then go interview a bunch of voters at a campaign event. Totally different worlds.  SAM: This might be taking too much of a software-as-destiny approach, but there is something to the interactivity and group harassment that you can make happen on Twitter that seems to have flowed back into the real world.  Before, if a politician was on talk radio or a TV news show, the fans at home could pump their fists and contemplate grinding their political enemies into dust, but they couldn’t actually all show up on someone’s Twitter feed in that moment and start harassing them. The ability of politicians and political actors to give people something immediate to do, that forms a stronger group identity around dunking and DMing and harassing people off the internet. I think that has added a certain bloodthirstiness.  LAURA: Right, and then there’s a figure like Trump — a president who embraced both the online and offline. He found a strong base of voter support, but was also deeply tied to Twitter.   MATT: Twitter, in terms of followers and engagement, rewards personalities. And there was no bigger personality than Trump. Compare that to President Biden, who ran one of the lowest-key presidential campaigns ever, and who won with a record number of votes.  SEEMA: President Trump was incredibly effective at using Twitter to bypass the media and speak directly to his supporters. But it’s also dangerous. Because he was able to spread information that was not true — like that the election was stolen — and there was no fact-checking until Twitter eventually kicked him off the platform.  SAM: One of my favorite takes (read on Twitter, of course) on the Trump rhetorical style was that he had the cadences and instincts of a borscht belt comedian working for a right-wing tabloid. And one of the first professional communities besides journalists to really lean into Twitter were comedians. And I think Trump’s way of talking and thinking fell right in the sweet spot of what works on Twitter. But as Seema points out, something “working” in a medium doesn’t mean it’s working for … society. Which is why Twitter eventually kicked him off!  LAURA: Speaking of Trump’s ban, how do you all see Twitter’s new approach playing out? After years of criticism, they’ve finally introduced new moderation standards, but is this a situation they can still control after 15 years — and do they even want to? After banning Trump from Twitter, Dorsey said he worried that precedent “will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet.”    SEEMA: I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle.  SAM: The company was really flailing in the days leading up to the election and then around the storming of the Capitol on Jan 6. I had to track the shifting terms of service and flagging/fact-checking/deleting/spread-limiting policies, and the overall picture was of a company tying itself into knots to avoid making a serious decision about the risk that politicians like Trump posed to human lives and the basic rule of law in the country. The company will say that new standards have been put in place, but it’s hard to know how that will play out when the rubber hits the road, and another fire breathing, lie-spreading public figure amasses millions of followers on the platform. I think the ability to control is there, at least in very high-profile cases. It is just a question of whether they want to.  MATT: It says something about Twitter’s power that as soon as they banned the president, our political discourse suddenly felt a lot different. Which is unsettling. The president should be able to speak. At the same time, the president shouldn’t be encouraging his followers to thwart a free and fair election. It’s a mess.  Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most.  Become a subscriber.    A very brief history of politics and Twitter
 President Obama is often credited as the first online president. His use of social media was so prolific, it has its own Wikipedia page.  He joined Twitter as @BarackObama in March 2007, and sent what are likely his first tweets that May. Obama was the first president to have a Twitter account and his administration marked the launch of the official @POTUS account on May 18, 2015, setting the precedent for administrations to come. To date, Obama’s @BarackObama account remains the most followed account on the platform, with more than 130 million followers.  But Obama wasn’t the first major U.S. politician to embrace Twitter. Determining that kind of milestone with certainty is difficult on a platform with so much traffic, but one thing is certain: Former Sen. John Edwards, the disgraced North Carolinian who was Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee and a two-time presidential candidate, has Obama beat.  A CQ Weekly story from April 7, 2007, reports that Edwards thanked well-wishers via Twitter for their support amid his wife’s cancer recurrence. At the time, Edwards was considered “far and away the leading adopter of technology in either major party’s presidential field.” The story is a delightful time capsule, harkening back to an era when the platform had to be described as “the real-time messaging service known as Twitter,” and “tweet” wasn’t yet a verb.  Twitter introduced account verification in 2009 — name-checking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Gavin Newsom in the process — to confront a troubling trend of impersonation claims and a lawsuit. Starting in 2010, the Library of Congress worked with the company to archive every tweet, only to scale back to major events and figures due to sheer volume.   A 2020 Pew Research Center analysis found members of Congress dramatically scaled up their use of Twitter in the second half of the 2010s. The average number of tweets the typical member of Congress posted each month nearly doubled between 2016 to 2020. Government officials have had to reckon with grass-roots political movements built on tweets. #BlackLivesMatter found a home on Twitter and so did #MeToo, which exploded into prominence in 2017. The platform also helped fuel far-right extremism, conspiracy theories like QAnon and harassment for political ends. The view from Washington
— For the second time in a week, Biden’s campaign to highlight pandemic relief benefits has been overshadowed by a mass shooting, thrusting the issue of gun control to the fore, Eli Stokols writes. He called on Congress to act, but it’s not clear what Biden or Democrats can do, Sarah D. Wire reports. — From Anita Chabria: Experts on extremism are warning about a troubling shift in the right-wing QAnon movement toward a new vein of conspiracy that blends anti-Chinese and anti-Jewish tropes with fears of vaccines and a global plot to take over the world. — Arizona’s Sen. Kyrsten Sinema has built a reputation as a maverick conservative Democrat. But as Melanie Mason writes, she’s now part of the majority ruling party for the first time in her career, a test of her approach. — Alex Padilla is the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate, Wire writes. Can he help break Washington’s gridlock on immigration reform? — Border crossings from Mexico are surging amid rumors that the Biden administration will be more lenient. Molly Hennessey-Fiske spoke to migrants and reports that an overwhelmed Border Patrol is releasing some without court paperwork, stirring confusion.  — Biden on Monday dispatched a high-level team to Mexico and Central America to start negotiating a “humane” solution to the growing crisis, Tracy Wilkinson reports. The view from California
— The latest on the recall effort: A critical question is whether another Democrat jumps into the race to replace Newsom, and many political experts believe it is inevitable, Mehta writes.  — With Xavier Becerra confirmed as Biden’s Health and Human Services secretary, Newsom must choose a new California attorney general. Patrick McGreevy takes a look at the likely candidates. — A Biden initiative that would pour money into repairing America’s decrepit infrastructure could net California a major windfall — if it gains traction, Ralph Vartabedian writes. — Affluent suburbanites seem unlikely revolutionaries. But Orange County is seeing a resurgence in right-wing extremism at a time when major demographic shifts have turned the region from a deep-red bastion into a more racially and politically diverse community.
Essential Politics: Twitter unleashed a 'firehose' we can't turn off. - Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2021-03-24/twitter-turns-15-trump-obama-essential-politics
Abstract Nowadays, Social Media are a privileged channel for news spreading, information exchange, and fact checking. Unexpectedly for many users, automated accounts, known as social bots, contribute more and more to this process of information diffusion. Using Twitter as a benchmark, we consider the traffic exchanged, over one month of observation, on the migration flux from Northern Africa to Italy. We measure the significant traffic of tweets only, by implementing an entropy-based null model that discounts the activity of users and the virality of tweets. Results show that social bots play a central role in the exchange of significant content. Indeed, not only the strongest hubs have a number of bots among their followers higher than expected, but furthermore a group of them, that can be assigned to the same political tendency, share a common set of bots as followers. The retweeting activity of such automated accounts amplifies the hubs’ messages. 
Abstract Nowadays, Social Media are a privileged channel for news spreading, information exchange, and fact checking. Unexpectedly for many users, automated accounts, known as social bots, contribute more and more to this process of information diffusion. Using Twitter as a benchmark, we consider the traffic exchanged, over one month of observation, on the migration flux from Northern Africa to Italy. We measure the significant traffic of tweets only, by implementing an entropy-based null model that discounts the activity of users and the virality of tweets. Results show that social bots play a central role in the exchange of significant content. Indeed, not only the strongest hubs have a number of bots among their followers higher than expected, but furthermore a group of them, that can be assigned to the same political tendency, share a common set of bots as followers. The retweeting activity of such automated accounts amplifies the hubs’ messages.
The role of bot squads in the political propaganda on Twitter
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-020-0340-4
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59011271
Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, research finds
2021-10-22
None
<div><div><article><header></header><div><figure><p>Image source, Getty Images</p></figure></div><div><p><b>Twitter amplifies tweets from right-leaning political parties and news outlets more than from the left, its own research suggests.</b></p></div><div><p>The social-media giant said it made the discovery while exploring how its algorithm recommends political content to users.</p></div><div><p>But it admitted it did not know why, saying that was a "more difficult question to answer".</p></div><div><p>Twitter's study examined tweets from political parties and users sharing content from news outlets in seven countries around the world: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US.</p></div><div><p>It analysed millions of tweets sent between 1 April and 15 August 2020.</p></div><div><p>Researchers then used the data to see which tweets were being amplified more on an algorithmically ordered feed compared with a reverse-chronological feed, both of which users have an option of using.</p></div><div><p><a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/rml-politicalcontent">They found</a> that mainstream parties and outlets on the political right enjoyed higher levels of "algorithmic amplification" compared with their counterparts on the left.</p></div><div><p>Rumman Chowdhury, director of Twitter's Meta (machine-learning, ethics, transparency, and accountability) team, said the company's next step was to find out the reason behind the phenomenon.</p></div><div><p>"In six out of seven countries, tweets posted by political-right elected officials are algorithmically amplified more than the political left. Right-leaning news outlets... see greater amplification compared to left-leaning," she said. </p></div><div><p>"Establishing why these observed patterns occur is a significantly more difficult question to answer and something Meta will examine."</p></div><div><p>Researchers noted that the difference in amplification could be due to the "differing strategies" used by political parties to reach audiences on the platform. </p></div><div><p>They also said the findings did not suggest that its algorithms pushed "extreme ideologies more than mainstream political voices" - another common concern expressed by Twitter's critics.</p></div><div><p>This is not the first time Twitter has highlighted apparent bias in its algorithm. </p></div><div><p>In April, the platform revealed that it was conducting a study to determine whether its algorithms contributed to "unintentional harms". </p></div><div><p>In May, the company revealed that its <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57192898">automatic cropping of images had underlying issues</a> that favoured white individuals over black people, and women over men.</p></div><section><p></p><h2>More on this story</h2><p></p></section></article></div>||||I|||| BBC Homepage
 * Skip to content
 * Accessibility Help
 * Your account
 * Home
 * News
 * Sport
 * Reel
 * Worklife
 * Travel
 * Future
 * More menu
 More menu
 Search BBC
 * Home
 * News
 * Sport
 * Reel
 * Worklife
 * Travel
 * Future
 * Culture
 * Music
 * TV
 * Weather
 * Sounds
 Close menu
 BBC News
 Menu
 * Home
 * War in Ukraine
 * Coronavirus
 * Climate
 * Video
 * World
 * US & Canada
 * UK
 * Business
 * Tech
 More
 * Science
 * Stories
 * Entertainment & Arts
 * Health
 * In Pictures
 * Reality Check
 * World News TV
 * Newsbeat
 * Long Reads
 * Tech

 Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, research finds

 * Published
 22 October 2021
 Share
 close panel
 Share page
 Copy link
 About sharing

 Image source, Getty Images

 Twitter amplifies tweets from right-leaning political parties and news outlets more than from the left, its own research suggests.

 The social-media giant said it made the discovery while exploring how its algorithm recommends political content to users.

 But it admitted it did not know why, saying that was a "more difficult question to answer".

 Twitter has previously faced claims of anti-conservative bias on its platform.

 Twitter's study examined tweets from political parties and users sharing content from news outlets in seven countries around the world: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US.

 It analysed millions of tweets sent between 1 April and 15 August 2020.

 Researchers then used the data to see which tweets were being amplified more on an algorithmically ordered feed compared with a reverse-chronological feed, both of which users have an option of using.

 They found that mainstream parties and outlets on the political right enjoyed higher levels of "algorithmic amplification" compared with their counterparts on the left.

 * Twitter to label 'good' bot accounts
 * Twitter tests bigger pictures in timeline

 Rumman Chowdhury, director of Twitter's Meta (machine-learning, ethics, transparency, and accountability) team, said the company's next step was to find out the reason behind the phenomenon.

 "In six out of seven countries, tweets posted by political-right elected officials are algorithmically amplified more than the political left. Right-leaning news outlets... see greater amplification compared to left-leaning," she said.

 "Establishing why these observed patterns occur is a significantly more difficult question to answer and something Meta will examine."

 Researchers noted that the difference in amplification could be due to the "differing strategies" used by political parties to reach audiences on the platform.

 They also said the findings did not suggest that its algorithms pushed "extreme ideologies more than mainstream political voices" - another common concern expressed by Twitter's critics.

 This is not the first time Twitter has highlighted apparent bias in its algorithm.

 In April, the platform revealed that it was conducting a study to determine whether its algorithms contributed to "unintentional harms".

 In May, the company revealed that its automatic cropping of images had underlying issues that favoured white individuals over black people, and women over men.

 More on this story

 * British entrepreneur sells company to Twitter

 + 21 October 2021

 * Users flood Twitter with outage jibes and memes

 + 4 October 2021

 Related Topics

 * Social media
 * Artificial intelligence
 * Twitter

 Top Stories

 * Live .Â

 Second earthquake hits Turkey after more than 1,000 killed

 * Balloon saga looks like China miscalculation

 + Published
 2 hours ago

 * The key Ukrainian cities in Russiaâs sights

 + Published
 2 hours ago

 Features

 * Explosions, cyber attacks... welcome to hybrid warfare

 * Five takeaways from the 2023 Grammy Awards

 * Balloon saga deflates efforts to mend US-China relations

 * 

 * 'Investing in the artist makes me feel more involved in the song'

 * The key Ukrainian cities in Russiaâs sights

 * The Indian guru making headlines over 'miracle' cures

 * Why maggots are a medical marvel

 * The benefits of a 'weekend marriage'

 * Obituary: Pervez Musharraf

 Elsewhere on the BBC

 * The animal Canada tried to destroy

 * The most beloved French writer ever

 * Who gets a four-day working week?

 Most Read

 1. 1
 Five takeaways from the 2023 Grammy Awards
 2. 2
 Grammys 2023: Red carpet fashion in pictures
 3. 3
 Balloon saga deflates efforts to mend US-China relations
 4. 4
 Second balloon over Latin America is ours - China
 5. 5
 College head found dead with husband and daughter
 6. 6
 Australia shark attack victim identified as schoolgirl
 7. 7
 Huge quake toppled buildings as people slept
 8. 8
 Tate was violent and coercive, says ex-girlfriend
 9. 9
 The key Ukrainian cities in Russiaâs sights
 10. 10
 BeyoncÃ© and Harry Styles win major Grammy honours

 BBC News Services

 * On your mobile
 * On smart speakers
 * Get news alerts
 * Contact BBC News
 * Home
 * News
 * Sport
 * Reel
 * Worklife
 * Travel
 * Future
 * Culture
 * Music
 * TV
 * Weather
 * Sounds
 * Terms of Use
 * About the BBC
 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookies
 * Accessibility Help
 * Parental Guidance
 * Contact the BBC
 * Get Personalised Newsletters
 * Why you can trust the BBC
 * Advertise with us
 * AdChoices / Do Not Sell My Info

 Â© 2023 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Image source, Getty Images     Twitter amplifies tweets from right-leaning political parties and news outlets more than from the left, its own research suggests.    The social-media giant said it made the discovery while exploring how its algorithm recommends political content to users.   But it admitted it did not know why, saying that was a "more difficult question to answer".   Twitter's study examined tweets from political parties and users sharing content from news outlets in seven countries around the world: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US.   It analysed millions of tweets sent between 1 April and 15 August 2020.   Researchers then used the data to see which tweets were being amplified more on an algorithmically ordered feed compared with a reverse-chronological feed, both of which users have an option of using.    They found that mainstream parties and outlets on the political right enjoyed higher levels of "algorithmic amplification" compared with their counterparts on the left.   Rumman Chowdhury, director of Twitter's Meta (machine-learning, ethics, transparency, and accountability) team, said the company's next step was to find out the reason behind the phenomenon.   "In six out of seven countries, tweets posted by political-right elected officials are algorithmically amplified more than the political left. Right-leaning news outlets... see greater amplification compared to left-leaning," she said.    "Establishing why these observed patterns occur is a significantly more difficult question to answer and something Meta will examine."   Researchers noted that the difference in amplification could be due to the "differing strategies" used by political parties to reach audiences on the platform.    They also said the findings did not suggest that its algorithms pushed "extreme ideologies more than mainstream political voices" - another common concern expressed by Twitter's critics.   This is not the first time Twitter has highlighted apparent bias in its algorithm.    In April, the platform revealed that it was conducting a study to determine whether its algorithms contributed to "unintentional harms".    In May, the company revealed that its automatic cropping of images had underlying issues that favoured white individuals over black people, and women over men.     More on this story
Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, research finds
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59011271
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/
National Politics on Twitter: Small Share of U.S. Adults Produce Majority of Tweets
2019-10-23
Sara Atske; Emma Remy; Adam Hughes; Aaron Smith
<div><article>
	<div>
	<p><br />
The social media platform Twitter plays a prominent role in how politicians, media outlets and advocacy organizations promote their agendas and engage with political issues. Although these entities represent a highly visible portion of the political Twitter ecosystem, less is known about the political tweeting habits of the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/">22% of the American public</a> that uses Twitter. A new Pew Research Center analysis sheds light on this question by collecting and analyzing the tweets of a random sample of U.S. adults with public Twitter accounts<sup><a href="#fn-20071635-1">1</a></sup> over a period of one year surrounding the 2018 midterm elections (from June 10, 2018, through June 9, 2019).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-01/"></a>The findings of this analysis paint a nuanced picture of just how prevalent political speech is among U.S. adults on Twitter. On one hand, 39% of users with public accounts tweeted at least once about national politics – which includes mentions of national politicians, institutions or groups, as well as civic behaviors such as voting – over the study period. On the other hand, national politics is a relatively small element of the total Twitter conversation among U.S. adults. Content explicitly related to these issues made up just 13% of all tweets analyzed over the year studied.</p>
<p>And <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/">as our previous research found to be true</a> of Twitter content more broadly, this analysis finds that a small share of users produce the vast majority of content related to national politics: 97% of tweets from U.S. adults that mentioned national politics over the study period came from just 10% of users.</p>
<p>A total of 2,427 respondents with public Twitter accounts participated in the survey; collectively, they produced more than 1.1 million tweets over the course of the study period (June 10, 2018-June 9, 2019). The Center used a guided machine learning model to classify each of these 1.1 million tweets as related to national politics or not (<a href="#national-politics-tweets">see sidebar</a> and <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-methodology/">methodology</a> for more details on this process and the types of content that are included in our definition of political tweets).</p>
<p>The study design helps to illustrate which types of users are most drawn to tweet about national politics in the first place. Most notably, those with intense views of President Donald Trump are among the most prolific political tweeters.</p>
<p>Tweets from users who strongly disapprove of Trump are especially prominent: This group generates 80% of all tweets from U.S. adults and 72% of tweets mentioning national politics. Those who strongly approve of Trump (who produce 11% of all tweets from U.S. adults) create 25% of tweets mentioning national politics. Taken together, strong disapprovers and strong approvers of Trump generate 97% of all tweets mentioning national politics from U.S. adults on Twitter. In interpreting these results, it is important to note that it was beyond the scope of this study to classify the share of tweets that explicitly mentioned the president, or that expressed particular views about his administration’s policies. And as noted above, the definition of political tweets used in this analysis includes a wide range of phrases and hashtags not related to Trump.</p>
<p>The prevalence of tweets mentioning national politics from U.S. adults who strongly disapprove of Trump is tied to two factors. First, this group makes up a larger share of Twitter users than of the general public. The share of U.S. adults on Twitter who strongly disapprove of Trump (55%) is 7 percentage points higher than the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/06/19/public-highly-critical-of-state-of-political-discourse-in-the-u-s/">share of the general public</a> that holds this view (48%). Second, this group is more likely to tweet about national politics than others on Twitter. Strong disapprovers of Trump make up 55% of all U.S. adults on Twitter, but their frequency of tweeting about national politics results in them generating 72% of all the tweets about this topic from U.S. adults.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-02/"></a></p><p>By contrast, U.S. adults who strongly approve of Trump are underrepresented on Twitter relative to their presence in the population as a whole: 15% of Twitter users strongly approve of Trump, compared with 29% of the general public. However, those who strongly approve of Trump are similar to those who strongly disapprove of him in that they also are more likely than other groups to tweet about national politics. Twitter users who strongly approve of Trump generate 25% of the political tweets that come from U.S. adults – larger than the share of all Twitter users they represent (15%).</p>
<h3>Those who tweet about politics differ from those who avoid the topic or tweet infrequently</h3>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-03/"></a>Pairing a survey with an examination of the Twitter behaviors of U.S. adults also allows for a comparison of the attitudes and characteristics of political tweeters with those of other Twitter users. Political tweeters – defined as those who tweeted at least five times in total, and at least twice about national politics, over the year of the study period – are almost twice as likely as other Twitter users to say the people they follow on Twitter have political beliefs similar to their own (38% of political tweeters say this, compared with around one-in-five among nonpolitical tweeters). By contrast, nonpolitical tweeters are more likely to say they aren’t sure about the political beliefs of the people they follow or that they follow people with a mix of political views.</p>
<p>And greater engagement with national politics on Twitter is tied to political behaviors that extend beyond the social media platform. Those who tweet about politics are more likely than other users to report engaging in a variety of political activities, such as attending rallies and contacting elected officials.</p>
<p>Prior research by the Center has found that politically engaged Republicans and Democrats in the general public are more likely than less-engaged partisans to hold a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/">range of negative attitudes about the opposing party</a>. And this new analysis indicates that partisans who tweet about national political issues tend to have colder views of the opposing political party relative to other users who are less politically active on the site. This difference is especially pronounced among Republicans: 51% of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party who tweet about national politics give a very cold rating to Democrats, compared with about a third of Republicans on Twitter who don’t tweet about politics.</p>
<div>
<h4><a></a>Measuring whether or not tweets talk about ‘national politics’</h4>
<p>A central challenge of identifying and analyzing political content (on Twitter or elsewhere) is that many types of speech or online activity might be deemed “political” in some form or fashion. The general concept of politics might encompass numerous actors at the federal, state or local levels, as well as issue-specific concepts ranging from abortion to immigration to taxes. In an effort to create a broadly reasonable and functional definition of what tweets are considered “political” for the purposes of this analysis, we chose to focus on tweets that <b>specifically mention or engage with national politics</b>.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this analysis, a tweet is considered to discuss national politics if it mentions or expresses support or opposition toward national politicians or elected officials, political parties, ideological groups or political institutions, or specific political behaviors like voting. This definition of political content <b>excludes</b> tweets that are solely about state or local politics. It also does not include general discussions of issues (even if those issues may be of national interest) unless they also include a mention of a national politician, party, institution or organized political behavior.</p>
<p>Researchers identified tweets about national politics using a two-step process. First, they used a custom text classification model to classify political tweets based on the language used in the tweet. As an example, tweets encouraging Americans to vote in a national election or using common political hashtags would be classified as political during this step. Second, researchers searched for mentions of the Twitter usernames of members of Congress and other notable national politicians. All tweets mentioning these usernames were classified as political. As a result, tweets that engage with national politicians on Twitter are classified as political even if the content of the tweet is otherwise not obviously political. For instance, a brief reply to a member of Congress saying “happy birthday” would be classified as being related to national politics.</p>
<p>It is important to note that this method may fail to correctly classify tweets that use irony, sarcasm, memes or images to convey feelings or ideas about national politics. In other words, this analysis captures only the specific subset of the larger political conversation on Twitter that involves overt or explicit discussion of, or engagement with, U.S. national politics.</p>
<p>Despite the bounded nature of this definition, the estimates produced by this model largely align with the self-reported tweeting behavior of participants in the survey. For those who say they never tweet about politics or have, but not recently, the model estimates that just 2% of their tweets mention national politics. But among those who say they have tweeted about politics within the previous 30 days, an estimated 26% of their tweets mentioned national politics.</p>
</div>
<p>Reflecting the modest share of all Twitter users they represent, older adults on Twitter don’t produce a great deal of the total content. But this group is much more inclined to talk about national politics in their tweets than younger users. Those ages 65 and older produce just 10% of all tweets from U.S. adults, but these older Twitter users contribute 33% of tweets related to national politics. More broadly, those 50 and older produce 29% of all tweets but contribute 73% of tweets mentioning national politics. By contrast, 18- to 29-year-olds produce 20% of all public tweets from U.S. adults, but just 4% of political tweets.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-04/"></a></p><p>In addition to these age-related differences, Republicans who describe themselves as conservative and Democrats who indicate that they are liberal are more likely to tweet about national politics than others in their parties. Researchers used an <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/09/13/republicans-democrats-see-opposing-party-as-more-ideological-than-their-own/">11-point scale</a> ranging from 0 (“very conservative”) to 10 (“very liberal”) to measure how individuals self-identified ideologically. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who identify as conservative (0-4) on the scale, 25% of tweets mention national politics. But just 9% of tweets from Republicans at the midpoint or liberal end of the scale (5-10) do the same.</p>
<p>Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, there is a similar pattern: 17% of tweets from Democrats who identify as liberal (6-10) on the scale mention national politics, compared with 5% among those who do not identify in this way (0-5).</p>
<div>
<h4>The different types of Twitter users examined in this report</h4>
<p>To compare the attitudes and behaviors of different types of Twitter users, researchers classified respondents to the survey into one of three categories based on how often they tweet in general, as well as whether they tweet about national politics.</p>
<p><strong>Political tweeters</strong> are defined as those who tweeted at least five times over the study period, with a minimum of two of those tweets discussing national politics. About three-in-ten (31%) U.S. adults are in this group. Political tweeters are particularly likely to be Democrats: 67% of political tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 28% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. The model used in this report estimates that 13% of all tweets produced by this group are political. Among those who say in the accompanying survey that they have tweeted about politics in the last 30 days, 78% meet our definition of a political tweeter based on their Twitter behavior. This group also contains some of the most active tweeters in the sample in terms of overall tweet volume.</p>
<p>Nonpolitical tweeters are defined as those who tweeted at least five times over the study period, but had no more than one tweet in that time that mentioned national politics. This group makes up 26% of U.S. adults on Twitter. Overall, 63% of nonpolitical tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 33% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Less than 1% of all tweets from this group are political in nature.</p>
<p><strong>Infrequent tweeters</strong> are defined as those who tweeted fewer than five times in total over the year and includes those who did not tweet at all. Infrequent tweeters make up 43% of all U.S. adults on Twitter. Overall, 54% of infrequent tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 42% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. This group accounts for fewer than 1% of all tweets produced by U.S. adults; 6% of their tweets are classified as political.</p>
<p>Political tweeters report visiting the site with great regularity: 73% of this group says they use the site at least once a day. The other two groups contain a smaller share of regular visitors to the site: 48% of nonpolitical tweeters and 33% of infrequent tweeters say that they use the site on a daily basis.</p>
</div>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-05/"></a>Most U.S. adults on Twitter report that they follow people with a mix of political views (37%) or that they don’t know the political views of the people they follow (34%). A quarter (25%) say most of the people they follow on Twitter hold similar political views to their own, while just 4% say that most of the people they follow have political views that are different from theirs.</p>
<p>The above relationship – in which a majority of users follow either a mix of people with different beliefs or say they aren’t sure of the political views of the people they follow – holds for the three types of Twitter users identified in this analysis (political tweeters, nonpolitical tweeters and infrequent tweeters). Still, the share of Twitter users who say they follow people with political views similar to their own is much higher among those who tweet about national politics (38%) than it is among nonpolitical tweeters (17%) and those who tweet infrequently (20%). In part, this dynamic is driven by the fact that nonpolitical tweeters (39%) and those who tweet infrequently (37%) are more likely than political tweeters (25%) to say they don’t know the political views of the people they follow.</p>
<p>Democrats and Democratic leaners on Twitter are about twice as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning users to say that most of the people they follow hold similar political views to theirs (31% vs. 15%). A previous <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/">Pew Research Center report</a> found that Democrats make up a larger share of all Twitter users than of the general public overall.</p>
<p>Both Republicans and Democrats who tweet about national politics are more likely to say they follow people with similar political views than those who don’t tweet about politics. However, reflecting differences between partisans among all Twitter users generally, a larger share of Democrats (45%) than Republicans (25%) who tweet about national politics say they mostly follow people with political views that are similar to their own.</p>
<h3>Political tweeters have ‘colder’ views of members of the other party</h3>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-06/"></a>Partisans who tweet about national politics are more likely than those who do not to give members of the other party a “very cold” rating (a rating of less than 25 degrees on a 0-100 “feeling thermometer” scale).</p>
<p>This phenomenon is particularly prominent among Republicans: 51% of Republicans and Republican leaners who tweet about national politics give a very cold rating to Democrats – significantly higher than the shares of Republicans who don’t tweet about politics.</p>
<p>Among Democrats and Democratic leaners who tweet about national politics, 54% give a very cold rating to Republicans. Somewhat smaller shares of Democrats who don’t tweet about national politics give an equally cold rating for members of the other party.</p>
<h3>Greater levels of political activity and engagement among those who tweet about national politics</h3>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-07/"></a>Those who tweet about national politics are more likely than those who do not to report engaging in a range of behaviors related to political activity and engagement.</p>
<p>For example, 35% of national political tweeters say they have contacted an elected official within the last year, compared with 14% of nonpolitical tweeters and 21% of infrequent tweeters. Political tweeters are also more likely than the other two groups to say they have attended a political rally or protest or contributed money to a candidate running for office in the last year.</p>
<p>Within both political parties, national political tweeters are more likely to report engaging in political activity than nonpolitical tweeters.</p>
<p>Larger shares of Democratic political tweeters than Republican political tweeters say they participated in each of the three types of political behavior measured in the survey. This pattern is consistent with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/16/as-midterms-near-democrats-are-more-politically-active-than-republicans/">surveys of the general public conducted during the 2018 midterm election campaign</a>, which found higher levels of political engagement among Democrats than Republicans.</p>
<p>National political tweeters also are somewhat more likely than other Twitter users to say they regularly follow the news. About two-thirds of national political tweeters (65%) say they follow the news closely whether or not something important is happening, slightly larger than the shares of infrequent tweeters (59%) and nonpolitical tweeters (53%) who say the same.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/dl_2019-10-23_politics-on-twitter_0-08/"></a>Most Twitter users (57%) say they expect the news they see on social media sites to be largely <em>inaccurate</em>; 41% expect the news they see on social media to be largely accurate.</p>
<p>However, political tweeters are more evenly divided: 48% expect the news they see on social media to be largely accurate, while a comparable share (51%) expects it to be largely inaccurate. Other Twitter users with public accounts are more skeptical: 64% of nonpolitical tweeters and 58% of infrequent tweeters say they approach news stories from social media sites with the expectation that they will be largely inaccurate.</p>
<p>Differences on this question are driven largely by views among Democrats.</p>
<p>Democrats and Democratic leaners who tweet about politics are more likely than Democrats who don’t tweet about politics and Democrats who are infrequent tweeters to say they expect news stories from social media sites to be largely accurate (54% compared with 37% and 46%, respectively).</p>
<p>However, there is no comparable relationship among Republicans and Republican leaners. About two-thirds of Republicans across all three groups of Twitter users say they expect news stories from social media sites to be largely inaccurate.</p>
<p>Among the general public, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to express distrust in news organizations and rate the impact of the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/29/americans-have-become-much-less-positive-about-tech-companies-impact-on-the-u-s/">national news media on the country negatively</a>.</p>
<h3>The most prolific political tweeters have behaviors and attitudes distinct from other U.S. adults on Twitter</h3>
<p>As a group, political tweeters differ in numerous ways from those who tweet about nonpolitical topics and from those who rarely tweet at all. It’s also the case that there are meaningful differences <em>within</em> the group of users who tweet about national politics. The most prolific political tweeters (defined as those who tweeted at least 10 times and mentioned national politics in at least 25% of those tweets) stand out even from other political tweeters (whose political tweets make up a smaller share of their total output). Prolific political tweeters make up just 6% of all Twitter users but generate 20% of all tweets and 73% of tweets mentioning national politics.</p>
<p>Compared with other political tweeters, even larger shares of these highly prolific users say they largely follow others on Twitter who share their political views (51%) and that they follow the news closely whether or not something important is happening (92%). And this group is highly active in more traditional forms of political activity: 57% have contacted an elected official in the last year, while 38% have made a political donation and 34% have attended a rally.</p>
	</div>
</article>||||I|||| Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
 Newsletters Press Donate My Account

 Read our research on: Congress | Economy | COVID-19

 Research Topics
 All PublicationsMethodsShort ReadsTools & ResourcesExpertsAbout

 Topics

 Politics & PolicyInternational AffairsImmigration & MigrationRace & EthnicityReligionGenerations & AgeGender & LGBTQ
 Family & RelationshipsEconomy & WorkScienceInternet & TechnologyNews Habits & MediaMethodological ResearchFull topic list

 Regions & Countries

 Asia & the PacificEurope & RussiaLatin AmericaMiddle East & North AfricaNorth AmericaSub-Saharan AfricaMultiple Regions / Worldwide

 Formats

 FeaturesFact SheetsVideosData Essays
 Research Topics

 Topics

 Politics & PolicyInternational AffairsImmigration & MigrationRace & EthnicityReligionGenerations & AgeGender & LGBTQFamily & RelationshipsEconomy & WorkScienceInternet & TechnologyNews Habits & MediaMethodological ResearchFull topic list

 Regions & Countries

 Asia & the PacificEurope & RussiaLatin AmericaMiddle East & North AfricaNorth AmericaSub-Saharan AfricaMultiple Regions / Worldwide

 Formats

 FeaturesFact SheetsVideosData Essays
 All PublicationsMethodsShort ReadsTools & ResourcesExpertsAboutMy Account
 DONATE

 Read our research on: Congress | Economy | COVID-19

 Home Research Topics Internet & Technology Politics Online
 Pew Research Center October 23, 2019

 National Politics on Twitter: Small Share of U.S. Adults Produce Majority of Tweets

 Those who strongly disapprove of Trump produce majority of tweets from U.S. adults that mention national politics


 The social media platform Twitter plays a prominent role in how politicians, media outlets and advocacy organizations promote their agendas and engage with political issues. Although these entities represent a highly visible portion of the political Twitter ecosystem, less is known about the political tweeting habits of the 22% of the American public that uses Twitter. A new Pew Research Center analysis sheds light on this question by collecting and analyzing the tweets of a random sample of U.S. adults with public Twitter accounts1 over a period of one year surrounding the 2018 midterm elections (from June 10, 2018, through June 9, 2019).

 The findings of this analysis paint a nuanced picture of just how prevalent political speech is among U.S. adults on Twitter. On one hand, 39% of users with public accounts tweeted at least once about national politics – which includes mentions of national politicians, institutions or groups, as well as civic behaviors such as voting – over the study period. On the other hand, national politics is a relatively small element of the total Twitter conversation among U.S. adults. Content explicitly related to these issues made up just 13% of all tweets analyzed over the year studied.

 And as our previous research found to be true of Twitter content more broadly, this analysis finds that a small share of users produce the vast majority of content related to national politics: 97% of tweets from U.S. adults that mentioned national politics over the study period came from just 10% of users.

 A total of 2,427 respondents with public Twitter accounts participated in the survey; collectively, they produced more than 1.1 million tweets over the course of the study period (June 10, 2018-June 9, 2019). The Center used a guided machine learning model to classify each of these 1.1 million tweets as related to national politics or not (see sidebar and methodology for more details on this process and the types of content that are included in our definition of political tweets).

 The study design helps to illustrate which types of users are most drawn to tweet about national politics in the first place. Most notably, those with intense views of President Donald Trump are among the most prolific political tweeters.

 Tweets from users who strongly disapprove of Trump are especially prominent: This group generates 80% of all tweets from U.S. adults and 72% of tweets mentioning national politics. Those who strongly approve of Trump (who produce 11% of all tweets from U.S. adults) create 25% of tweets mentioning national politics. Taken together, strong disapprovers and strong approvers of Trump generate 97% of all tweets mentioning national politics from U.S. adults on Twitter. In interpreting these results, it is important to note that it was beyond the scope of this study to classify the share of tweets that explicitly mentioned the president, or that expressed particular views about his administration’s policies. And as noted above, the definition of political tweets used in this analysis includes a wide range of phrases and hashtags not related to Trump.

 The prevalence of tweets mentioning national politics from U.S. adults who strongly disapprove of Trump is tied to two factors. First, this group makes up a larger share of Twitter users than of the general public. The share of U.S. adults on Twitter who strongly disapprove of Trump (55%) is 7 percentage points higher than the share of the general public that holds this view (48%). Second, this group is more likely to tweet about national politics than others on Twitter. Strong disapprovers of Trump make up 55% of all U.S. adults on Twitter, but their frequency of tweeting about national politics results in them generating 72% of all the tweets about this topic from U.S. adults.

 By contrast, U.S. adults who strongly approve of Trump are underrepresented on Twitter relative to their presence in the population as a whole: 15% of Twitter users strongly approve of Trump, compared with 29% of the general public. However, those who strongly approve of Trump are similar to those who strongly disapprove of him in that they also are more likely than other groups to tweet about national politics. Twitter users who strongly approve of Trump generate 25% of the political tweets that come from U.S. adults – larger than the share of all Twitter users they represent (15%).

 Those who tweet about politics differ from those who avoid the topic or tweet infrequently

 Pairing a survey with an examination of the Twitter behaviors of U.S. adults also allows for a comparison of the attitudes and characteristics of political tweeters with those of other Twitter users. Political tweeters – defined as those who tweeted at least five times in total, and at least twice about national politics, over the year of the study period – are almost twice as likely as other Twitter users to say the people they follow on Twitter have political beliefs similar to their own (38% of political tweeters say this, compared with around one-in-five among nonpolitical tweeters). By contrast, nonpolitical tweeters are more likely to say they aren’t sure about the political beliefs of the people they follow or that they follow people with a mix of political views.

 And greater engagement with national politics on Twitter is tied to political behaviors that extend beyond the social media platform. Those who tweet about politics are more likely than other users to report engaging in a variety of political activities, such as attending rallies and contacting elected officials.

 Prior research by the Center has found that politically engaged Republicans and Democrats in the general public are more likely than less-engaged partisans to hold a range of negative attitudes about the opposing party. And this new analysis indicates that partisans who tweet about national political issues tend to have colder views of the opposing political party relative to other users who are less politically active on the site. This difference is especially pronounced among Republicans: 51% of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party who tweet about national politics give a very cold rating to Democrats, compared with about a third of Republicans on Twitter who don’t tweet about politics.

 Measuring whether or not tweets talk about ‘national politics’

 A central challenge of identifying and analyzing political content (on Twitter or elsewhere) is that many types of speech or online activity might be deemed “political” in some form or fashion. The general concept of politics might encompass numerous actors at the federal, state or local levels, as well as issue-specific concepts ranging from abortion to immigration to taxes. In an effort to create a broadly reasonable and functional definition of what tweets are considered “political” for the purposes of this analysis, we chose to focus on tweets that specifically mention or engage with national politics.

 For the purposes of this analysis, a tweet is considered to discuss national politics if it mentions or expresses support or opposition toward national politicians or elected officials, political parties, ideological groups or political institutions, or specific political behaviors like voting. This definition of political content excludes tweets that are solely about state or local politics. It also does not include general discussions of issues (even if those issues may be of national interest) unless they also include a mention of a national politician, party, institution or organized political behavior.

 Researchers identified tweets about national politics using a two-step process. First, they used a custom text classification model to classify political tweets based on the language used in the tweet. As an example, tweets encouraging Americans to vote in a national election or using common political hashtags would be classified as political during this step. Second, researchers searched for mentions of the Twitter usernames of members of Congress and other notable national politicians. All tweets mentioning these usernames were classified as political. As a result, tweets that engage with national politicians on Twitter are classified as political even if the content of the tweet is otherwise not obviously political. For instance, a brief reply to a member of Congress saying “happy birthday” would be classified as being related to national politics.

 It is important to note that this method may fail to correctly classify tweets that use irony, sarcasm, memes or images to convey feelings or ideas about national politics. In other words, this analysis captures only the specific subset of the larger political conversation on Twitter that involves overt or explicit discussion of, or engagement with, U.S. national politics.

 Despite the bounded nature of this definition, the estimates produced by this model largely align with the self-reported tweeting behavior of participants in the survey. For those who say they never tweet about politics or have, but not recently, the model estimates that just 2% of their tweets mention national politics. But among those who say they have tweeted about politics within the previous 30 days, an estimated 26% of their tweets mentioned national politics.

 Older Americans produce sizable share of tweets by U.S. adults mentioning national politics

 Reflecting the modest share of all Twitter users they represent, older adults on Twitter don’t produce a great deal of the total content. But this group is much more inclined to talk about national politics in their tweets than younger users. Those ages 65 and older produce just 10% of all tweets from U.S. adults, but these older Twitter users contribute 33% of tweets related to national politics. More broadly, those 50 and older produce 29% of all tweets but contribute 73% of tweets mentioning national politics. By contrast, 18- to 29-year-olds produce 20% of all public tweets from U.S. adults, but just 4% of political tweets.

 In addition to these age-related differences, Republicans who describe themselves as conservative and Democrats who indicate that they are liberal are more likely to tweet about national politics than others in their parties. Researchers used an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (“very conservative”) to 10 (“very liberal”) to measure how individuals self-identified ideologically. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who identify as conservative (0-4) on the scale, 25% of tweets mention national politics. But just 9% of tweets from Republicans at the midpoint or liberal end of the scale (5-10) do the same.

 Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, there is a similar pattern: 17% of tweets from Democrats who identify as liberal (6-10) on the scale mention national politics, compared with 5% among those who do not identify in this way (0-5).

 The different types of Twitter users examined in this report

 To compare the attitudes and behaviors of different types of Twitter users, researchers classified respondents to the survey into one of three categories based on how often they tweet in general, as well as whether they tweet about national politics.

 Political tweeters are defined as those who tweeted at least five times over the study period, with a minimum of two of those tweets discussing national politics. About three-in-ten (31%) U.S. adults are in this group. Political tweeters are particularly likely to be Democrats: 67% of political tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 28% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. The model used in this report estimates that 13% of all tweets produced by this group are political. Among those who say in the accompanying survey that they have tweeted about politics in the last 30 days, 78% meet our definition of a political tweeter based on their Twitter behavior. This group also contains some of the most active tweeters in the sample in terms of overall tweet volume.

 Nonpolitical tweeters are defined as those who tweeted at least five times over the study period, but had no more than one tweet in that time that mentioned national politics. This group makes up 26% of U.S. adults on Twitter. Overall, 63% of nonpolitical tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 33% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Less than 1% of all tweets from this group are political in nature.

 Infrequent tweeters are defined as those who tweeted fewer than five times in total over the year and includes those who did not tweet at all. Infrequent tweeters make up 43% of all U.S. adults on Twitter. Overall, 54% of infrequent tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 42% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. This group accounts for fewer than 1% of all tweets produced by U.S. adults; 6% of their tweets are classified as political.

 Political tweeters report visiting the site with great regularity: 73% of this group says they use the site at least once a day. The other two groups contain a smaller share of regular visitors to the site: 48% of nonpolitical tweeters and 33% of infrequent tweeters say that they use the site on a daily basis.

 Political tweeters are more likely to follow other people who share their political views

 Most U.S. adults on Twitter report that they follow people with a mix of political views (37%) or that they don’t know the political views of the people they follow (34%). A quarter (25%) say most of the people they follow on Twitter hold similar political views to their own, while just 4% say that most of the people they follow have political views that are different from theirs.

 The above relationship – in which a majority of users follow either a mix of people with different beliefs or say they aren’t sure of the political views of the people they follow – holds for the three types of Twitter users identified in this analysis (political tweeters, nonpolitical tweeters and infrequent tweeters). Still, the share of Twitter users who say they follow people with political views similar to their own is much higher among those who tweet about national politics (38%) than it is among nonpolitical tweeters (17%) and those who tweet infrequently (20%). In part, this dynamic is driven by the fact that nonpolitical tweeters (39%) and those who tweet infrequently (37%) are more likely than political tweeters (25%) to say they don’t know the political views of the people they follow.

 Democrats and Democratic leaners on Twitter are about twice as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning users to say that most of the people they follow hold similar political views to theirs (31% vs. 15%). A previous Pew Research Center report found that Democrats make up a larger share of all Twitter users than of the general public overall.

 Both Republicans and Democrats who tweet about national politics are more likely to say they follow people with similar political views than those who don’t tweet about politics. However, reflecting differences between partisans among all Twitter users generally, a larger share of Democrats (45%) than Republicans (25%) who tweet about national politics say they mostly follow people with political views that are similar to their own.

 Political tweeters have ‘colder’ views of members of the other party

 Partisans who tweet about national politics are more likely than those who do not to give members of the other party a “very cold” rating (a rating of less than 25 degrees on a 0-100 “feeling thermometer” scale).

 This phenomenon is particularly prominent among Republicans: 51% of Republicans and Republican leaners who tweet about national politics give a very cold rating to Democrats – significantly higher than the shares of Republicans who don’t tweet about politics.

 Among Democrats and Democratic leaners who tweet about national politics, 54% give a very cold rating to Republicans. Somewhat smaller shares of Democrats who don’t tweet about national politics give an equally cold rating for members of the other party.

 Greater levels of political activity and engagement among those who tweet about national politics

 Those who tweet about national politics are more likely than those who do not to report engaging in a range of behaviors related to political activity and engagement.

 For example, 35% of national political tweeters say they have contacted an elected official within the last year, compared with 14% of nonpolitical tweeters and 21% of infrequent tweeters. Political tweeters are also more likely than the other two groups to say they have attended a political rally or protest or contributed money to a candidate running for office in the last year.

 Within both political parties, national political tweeters are more likely to report engaging in political activity than nonpolitical tweeters.

 Larger shares of Democratic political tweeters than Republican political tweeters say they participated in each of the three types of political behavior measured in the survey. This pattern is consistent with surveys of the general public conducted during the 2018 midterm election campaign, which found higher levels of political engagement among Democrats than Republicans.

 National political tweeters also are somewhat more likely than other Twitter users to say they regularly follow the news. About two-thirds of national political tweeters (65%) say they follow the news closely whether or not something important is happening, slightly larger than the shares of infrequent tweeters (59%) and nonpolitical tweeters (53%) who say the same.

 U.S. adults on Twitter skeptical about the accuracy of news from social media sites

 Most Twitter users (57%) say they expect the news they see on social media sites to be largely inaccurate; 41% expect the news they see on social media to be largely accurate.

 However, political tweeters are more evenly divided: 48% expect the news they see on social media to be largely accurate, while a comparable share (51%) expects it to be largely inaccurate. Other Twitter users with public accounts are more skeptical: 64% of nonpolitical tweeters and 58% of infrequent tweeters say they approach news stories from social media sites with the expectation that they will be largely inaccurate.

 Differences on this question are driven largely by views among Democrats.

 Democrats and Democratic leaners who tweet about politics are more likely than Democrats who don’t tweet about politics and Democrats who are infrequent tweeters to say they expect news stories from social media sites to be largely accurate (54% compared with 37% and 46%, respectively).

 However, there is no comparable relationship among Republicans and Republican leaners. About two-thirds of Republicans across all three groups of Twitter users say they expect news stories from social media sites to be largely inaccurate.

 Among the general public, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to express distrust in news organizations and rate the impact of the national news media on the country negatively.

 The most prolific political tweeters have behaviors and attitudes distinct from other U.S. adults on Twitter

 As a group, political tweeters differ in numerous ways from those who tweet about nonpolitical topics and from those who rarely tweet at all. It’s also the case that there are meaningful differences within the group of users who tweet about national politics. The most prolific political tweeters (defined as those who tweeted at least 10 times and mentioned national politics in at least 25% of those tweets) stand out even from other political tweeters (whose political tweets make up a smaller share of their total output). Prolific political tweeters make up just 6% of all Twitter users but generate 20% of all tweets and 73% of tweets mentioning national politics.

 Compared with other political tweeters, even larger shares of these highly prolific users say they largely follow others on Twitter who share their political views (51%) and that they follow the news closely whether or not something important is happening (92%). And this group is highly active in more traditional forms of political activity: 57% have contacted an elected official in the last year, while 38% have made a political donation and 34% have attended a rally.

 Next: Acknowledgments
 ← Prev Page
 You are reading page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4
 Next Page →
 1. Because tweets from users with private accounts are only visible to their followers, they are not included in this analysis. For more detail on private accounts, see this post. ↩

 Sign up for our Politics newsletter

 Sent weekly on Wednesday

 Sign Up

 Report Materials

 Complete Report PDF Topline QuestionnaireVideo: What is machine learning? 2018 Twitter Survey Dataset

 Table of Contents

 National Politics on Twitter: Small Share of U.S. Adults Produce Majority of Tweets
 Those who tweet about politics differ from those who avoid the topic or tweet infrequentlyOlder Americans produce sizable share of tweets by U.S. adults mentioning national politicsPolitical tweeters are more likely to follow other people who share their political viewsPolitical tweeters have ‘colder’ views of members of the other partyGreater levels of political activity and engagement among those who tweet about national politicsU.S. adults on Twitter skeptical about the accuracy of news from social media sitesThe most prolific political tweeters have behaviors and attitudes distinct from other U.S. adults on Twitter
 Acknowledgments Methodology Appendix: Demographic profiles of Twitter user types

 Related

 report | Sep 30, 2021

 Charting Congress on Social Media in the 2016 and 2020 Elections

 short read | Jul 14, 2021

 Members of Congress – especially Republicans – are increasingly discussing China on social media

 report | Jun 14, 2021

 Facebook Posts in Early Days of Biden Administration Reflect Ideological Divide

 feature | May 19, 2021

 Americans and ‘Cancel Culture’: Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

 short read | May 5, 2021

 Americans divided on whether Trump should be permanently banned from social media

 MOST POPULAR

 1
 What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
 2
 What the data says about abortion in the U.S.
 3
 Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator
 4
 India’s Sex Ratio at Birth Begins To Normalize
 5
 Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022


 1615 L St. NW, Suite 800
 Washington , DC 20036
 USA
 (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main
 (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax
 (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

 Research Topics
 Politics & PolicyInternational AffairsImmigration & MigrationRace & EthnicityReligionGenerations & AgeGender & LGBTQ
 Family & RelationshipsEconomy & WorkScienceInternet & TechnologyNews Habits & MediaMethodological ResearchFull topic list
 Follow Us
 Email Newsletters Facebook Twitter Tumblr YouTube RSS

 About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

 Copyright 2023 Pew Research Center About Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy Feedback Careers
The social media platform Twitter plays a prominent role in how politicians, media outlets and advocacy organizations promote their agendas and engage with political issues. Although these entities represent a highly visible portion of the political Twitter ecosystem, less is known about the political tweeting habits of the 22% of the American public that uses Twitter. A new Pew Research Center analysis sheds light on this question by collecting and analyzing the tweets of a random sample of U.S. adults with public Twitter accounts 1  over a period of one year surrounding the 2018 midterm elections (from June 10, 2018, through June 9, 2019).
  The findings of this analysis paint a nuanced picture of just how prevalent political speech is among U.S. adults on Twitter. On one hand, 39% of users with public accounts tweeted at least once about national politics – which includes mentions of national politicians, institutions or groups, as well as civic behaviors such as voting – over the study period. On the other hand, national politics is a relatively small element of the total Twitter conversation among U.S. adults. Content explicitly related to these issues made up just 13% of all tweets analyzed over the year studied.
And as our previous research found to be true of Twitter content more broadly, this analysis finds that a small share of users produce the vast majority of content related to national politics: 97% of tweets from U.S. adults that mentioned national politics over the study period came from just 10% of users.
A total of 2,427 respondents with public Twitter accounts participated in the survey; collectively, they produced more than 1.1 million tweets over the course of the study period (June 10, 2018-June 9, 2019). The Center used a guided machine learning model to classify each of these 1.1 million tweets as related to national politics or not (see sidebar and methodology for more details on this process and the types of content that are included in our definition of political tweets).
The study design helps to illustrate which types of users are most drawn to tweet about national politics in the first place. Most notably, those with intense views of President Donald Trump are among the most prolific political tweeters.
Tweets from users who strongly disapprove of Trump are especially prominent: This group generates 80% of all tweets from U.S. adults and 72% of tweets mentioning national politics. Those who strongly approve of Trump (who produce 11% of all tweets from U.S. adults) create 25% of tweets mentioning national politics. Taken together, strong disapprovers and strong approvers of Trump generate 97% of all tweets mentioning national politics from U.S. adults on Twitter. In interpreting these results, it is important to note that it was beyond the scope of this study to classify the share of tweets that explicitly mentioned the president, or that expressed particular views about his administration’s policies. And as noted above, the definition of political tweets used in this analysis includes a wide range of phrases and hashtags not related to Trump.
The prevalence of tweets mentioning national politics from U.S. adults who strongly disapprove of Trump is tied to two factors. First, this group makes up a larger share of Twitter users than of the general public. The share of U.S. adults on Twitter who strongly disapprove of Trump (55%) is 7 percentage points higher than the share of the general public that holds this view (48%). Second, this group is more likely to tweet about national politics than others on Twitter. Strong disapprovers of Trump make up 55% of all U.S. adults on Twitter, but their frequency of tweeting about national politics results in them generating 72% of all the tweets about this topic from U.S. adults.
    By contrast, U.S. adults who strongly approve of Trump are underrepresented on Twitter relative to their presence in the population as a whole: 15% of Twitter users strongly approve of Trump, compared with 29% of the general public. However, those who strongly approve of Trump are similar to those who strongly disapprove of him in that they also are more likely than other groups to tweet about national politics. Twitter users who strongly approve of Trump generate 25% of the political tweets that come from U.S. adults – larger than the share of all Twitter users they represent (15%).
Those who tweet about politics differ from those who avoid the topic or tweet infrequently
  Pairing a survey with an examination of the Twitter behaviors of U.S. adults also allows for a comparison of the attitudes and characteristics of political tweeters with those of other Twitter users. Political tweeters – defined as those who tweeted at least five times in total, and at least twice about national politics, over the year of the study period – are almost twice as likely as other Twitter users to say the people they follow on Twitter have political beliefs similar to their own (38% of political tweeters say this, compared with around one-in-five among nonpolitical tweeters). By contrast, nonpolitical tweeters are more likely to say they aren’t sure about the political beliefs of the people they follow or that they follow people with a mix of political views.
And greater engagement with national politics on Twitter is tied to political behaviors that extend beyond the social media platform. Those who tweet about politics are more likely than other users to report engaging in a variety of political activities, such as attending rallies and contacting elected officials.
Prior research by the Center has found that politically engaged Republicans and Democrats in the general public are more likely than less-engaged partisans to hold a range of negative attitudes about the opposing party. And this new analysis indicates that partisans who tweet about national political issues tend to have colder views of the opposing political party relative to other users who are less politically active on the site. This difference is especially pronounced among Republicans: 51% of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party who tweet about national politics give a very cold rating to Democrats, compared with about a third of Republicans on Twitter who don’t tweet about politics.
  Measuring whether or not tweets talk about ‘national politics’
A central challenge of identifying and analyzing political content (on Twitter or elsewhere) is that many types of speech or online activity might be deemed “political” in some form or fashion. The general concept of politics might encompass numerous actors at the federal, state or local levels, as well as issue-specific concepts ranging from abortion to immigration to taxes. In an effort to create a broadly reasonable and functional definition of what tweets are considered “political” for the purposes of this analysis, we chose to focus on tweets that specifically mention or engage with national politics.
For the purposes of this analysis, a tweet is considered to discuss national politics if it mentions or expresses support or opposition toward national politicians or elected officials, political parties, ideological groups or political institutions, or specific political behaviors like voting. This definition of political content excludes tweets that are solely about state or local politics. It also does not include general discussions of issues (even if those issues may be of national interest) unless they also include a mention of a national politician, party, institution or organized political behavior.
Researchers identified tweets about national politics using a two-step process. First, they used a custom text classification model to classify political tweets based on the language used in the tweet. As an example, tweets encouraging Americans to vote in a national election or using common political hashtags would be classified as political during this step. Second, researchers searched for mentions of the Twitter usernames of members of Congress and other notable national politicians. All tweets mentioning these usernames were classified as political. As a result, tweets that engage with national politicians on Twitter are classified as political even if the content of the tweet is otherwise not obviously political. For instance, a brief reply to a member of Congress saying “happy birthday” would be classified as being related to national politics.
It is important to note that this method may fail to correctly classify tweets that use irony, sarcasm, memes or images to convey feelings or ideas about national politics. In other words, this analysis captures only the specific subset of the larger political conversation on Twitter that involves overt or explicit discussion of, or engagement with, U.S. national politics.
Despite the bounded nature of this definition, the estimates produced by this model largely align with the self-reported tweeting behavior of participants in the survey. For those who say they never tweet about politics or have, but not recently, the model estimates that just 2% of their tweets mention national politics. But among those who say they have tweeted about politics within the previous 30 days, an estimated 26% of their tweets mentioned national politics.
Reflecting the modest share of all Twitter users they represent, older adults on Twitter don’t produce a great deal of the total content. But this group is much more inclined to talk about national politics in their tweets than younger users. Those ages 65 and older produce just 10% of all tweets from U.S. adults, but these older Twitter users contribute 33% of tweets related to national politics. More broadly, those 50 and older produce 29% of all tweets but contribute 73% of tweets mentioning national politics. By contrast, 18- to 29-year-olds produce 20% of all public tweets from U.S. adults, but just 4% of political tweets.
    In addition to these age-related differences, Republicans who describe themselves as conservative and Democrats who indicate that they are liberal are more likely to tweet about national politics than others in their parties. Researchers used an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (“very conservative”) to 10 (“very liberal”) to measure how individuals self-identified ideologically. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who identify as conservative (0-4) on the scale, 25% of tweets mention national politics. But just 9% of tweets from Republicans at the midpoint or liberal end of the scale (5-10) do the same.
Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, there is a similar pattern: 17% of tweets from Democrats who identify as liberal (6-10) on the scale mention national politics, compared with 5% among those who do not identify in this way (0-5).
The different types of Twitter users examined in this report
To compare the attitudes and behaviors of different types of Twitter users, researchers classified respondents to the survey into one of three categories based on how often they tweet in general, as well as whether they tweet about national politics.
 Political tweeters are defined as those who tweeted at least five times over the study period, with a minimum of two of those tweets discussing national politics. About three-in-ten (31%) U.S. adults are in this group. Political tweeters are particularly likely to be Democrats: 67% of political tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 28% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. The model used in this report estimates that 13% of all tweets produced by this group are political. Among those who say in the accompanying survey that they have tweeted about politics in the last 30 days, 78% meet our definition of a political tweeter based on their Twitter behavior. This group also contains some of the most active tweeters in the sample in terms of overall tweet volume.
Nonpolitical tweeters are defined as those who tweeted at least five times over the study period, but had no more than one tweet in that time that mentioned national politics. This group makes up 26% of U.S. adults on Twitter. Overall, 63% of nonpolitical tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 33% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Less than 1% of all tweets from this group are political in nature.
 Infrequent tweeters are defined as those who tweeted fewer than five times in total over the year and includes those who did not tweet at all. Infrequent tweeters make up 43% of all U.S. adults on Twitter. Overall, 54% of infrequent tweeters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party; 42% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. This group accounts for fewer than 1% of all tweets produced by U.S. adults; 6% of their tweets are classified as political.
Political tweeters report visiting the site with great regularity: 73% of this group says they use the site at least once a day. The other two groups contain a smaller share of regular visitors to the site: 48% of nonpolitical tweeters and 33% of infrequent tweeters say that they use the site on a daily basis.
  Most U.S. adults on Twitter report that they follow people with a mix of political views (37%) or that they don’t know the political views of the people they follow (34%). A quarter (25%) say most of the people they follow on Twitter hold similar political views to their own, while just 4% say that most of the people they follow have political views that are different from theirs.
The above relationship – in which a majority of users follow either a mix of people with different beliefs or say they aren’t sure of the political views of the people they follow – holds for the three types of Twitter users identified in this analysis (political tweeters, nonpolitical tweeters and infrequent tweeters). Still, the share of Twitter users who say they follow people with political views similar to their own is much higher among those who tweet about national politics (38%) than it is among nonpolitical tweeters (17%) and those who tweet infrequently (20%). In part, this dynamic is driven by the fact that nonpolitical tweeters (39%) and those who tweet infrequently (37%) are more likely than political tweeters (25%) to say they don’t know the political views of the people they follow.
Democrats and Democratic leaners on Twitter are about twice as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning users to say that most of the people they follow hold similar political views to theirs (31% vs. 15%). A previous Pew Research Center report found that Democrats make up a larger share of all Twitter users than of the general public overall.
Both Republicans and Democrats who tweet about national politics are more likely to say they follow people with similar political views than those who don’t tweet about politics. However, reflecting differences between partisans among all Twitter users generally, a larger share of Democrats (45%) than Republicans (25%) who tweet about national politics say they mostly follow people with political views that are similar to their own.
Political tweeters have ‘colder’ views of members of the other party
  Partisans who tweet about national politics are more likely than those who do not to give members of the other party a “very cold” rating (a rating of less than 25 degrees on a 0-100 “feeling thermometer” scale).
This phenomenon is particularly prominent among Republicans: 51% of Republicans and Republican leaners who tweet about national politics give a very cold rating to Democrats – significantly higher than the shares of Republicans who don’t tweet about politics.
Among Democrats and Democratic leaners who tweet about national politics, 54% give a very cold rating to Republicans. Somewhat smaller shares of Democrats who don’t tweet about national politics give an equally cold rating for members of the other party.
Greater levels of political activity and engagement among those who tweet about national politics
  Those who tweet about national politics are more likely than those who do not to report engaging in a range of behaviors related to political activity and engagement.
For example, 35% of national political tweeters say they have contacted an elected official within the last year, compared with 14% of nonpolitical tweeters and 21% of infrequent tweeters. Political tweeters are also more likely than the other two groups to say they have attended a political rally or protest or contributed money to a candidate running for office in the last year.
Within both political parties, national political tweeters are more likely to report engaging in political activity than nonpolitical tweeters.
Larger shares of Democratic political tweeters than Republican political tweeters say they participated in each of the three types of political behavior measured in the survey. This pattern is consistent with surveys of the general public conducted during the 2018 midterm election campaign, which found higher levels of political engagement among Democrats than Republicans.
National political tweeters also are somewhat more likely than other Twitter users to say they regularly follow the news. About two-thirds of national political tweeters (65%) say they follow the news closely whether or not something important is happening, slightly larger than the shares of infrequent tweeters (59%) and nonpolitical tweeters (53%) who say the same.
  Most Twitter users (57%) say they expect the news they see on social media sites to be largely inaccurate; 41% expect the news they see on social media to be largely accurate.
However, political tweeters are more evenly divided: 48% expect the news they see on social media to be largely accurate, while a comparable share (51%) expects it to be largely inaccurate. Other Twitter users with public accounts are more skeptical: 64% of nonpolitical tweeters and 58% of infrequent tweeters say they approach news stories from social media sites with the expectation that they will be largely inaccurate.
Differences on this question are driven largely by views among Democrats.
Democrats and Democratic leaners who tweet about politics are more likely than Democrats who don’t tweet about politics and Democrats who are infrequent tweeters to say they expect news stories from social media sites to be largely accurate (54% compared with 37% and 46%, respectively).
However, there is no comparable relationship among Republicans and Republican leaners. About two-thirds of Republicans across all three groups of Twitter users say they expect news stories from social media sites to be largely inaccurate.
Among the general public, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to express distrust in news organizations and rate the impact of the national news media on the country negatively.
The most prolific political tweeters have behaviors and attitudes distinct from other U.S. adults on Twitter
As a group, political tweeters differ in numerous ways from those who tweet about nonpolitical topics and from those who rarely tweet at all. It’s also the case that there are meaningful differences within the group of users who tweet about national politics. The most prolific political tweeters (defined as those who tweeted at least 10 times and mentioned national politics in at least 25% of those tweets) stand out even from other political tweeters (whose political tweets make up a smaller share of their total output). Prolific political tweeters make up just 6% of all Twitter users but generate 20% of all tweets and 73% of tweets mentioning national politics.
Compared with other political tweeters, even larger shares of these highly prolific users say they largely follow others on Twitter who share their political views (51%) and that they follow the news closely whether or not something important is happening (92%). And this group is highly active in more traditional forms of political activity: 57% have contacted an elected official in the last year, while 38% have made a political donation and 34% have attended a rally.
National Politics on Twitter: Small Share of U.S. Adults Produce Majority of Tweets
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/23/national-politics-on-twitter-small-share-of-u-s-adults-produce-majority-of-tweets/
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/29/twitter-dorsey-agrawal-ceo-523492
Twitter’s CEO is leaving. The storms that consumed his company won’t end.
2021-11-29
Emily Birnbaum; Alexandra S Levine st; Clip-Ruleevenodd; Fillfff Link Copied
<div><div>
<p>Dorsey made waves in Washington as he steered the company into the center of partisan feuds, including Twitter’s decisions to ban political ads before the 2020 election, <a href="https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/twitter-flagged-donald-trumps-tweets-with-election-misinformation-they-continued-to-spread-both-on-and-off-the-platform/">aggressively fact-check</a> misinformation and then permanently suspend Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.</p>
<p>He has also aggravated lawmakers by <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-congress-hearing-big-tech-poll-caught-2021-3">trolling them on Twitter</a> and ramped up his company’s <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-doesnt-use-facebook-apps-mark-zuckerberg-critique-2020-8">long-standing rivalry with its larger, far wealthier competitor Facebook</a>.</p>
<p>Twitter showed no immediate signs it plans to deviate from the path set by Dorsey, who in recent years installed a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/28/twitter-vijaya-gadde-free-speech-policies-technology-social-media-429221">politically minded lieutenant</a> and created <a href="https://www.protocol.com/workplace/twitter-ethical-ai-meta">ethics-focused teams within the company</a> to guide these kinds of decisions. But any transition at the top of the company offers at least the prospect of a new start with Twitter’s critics in Washington.</p>
<p>“There are a number of areas in which the company probably wants to take a step back and have a reset,” said Adam Sharp, who founded Twitter’s politics team and left the company in 2016. Sharp said Twitter will likely have to reevaluate its policies on political speech, including whether elected officials should face “any certain protections or restrictions that do not apply to the traditional private citizens” and how to tackle misinformation.</p>
<p>Ory Rinat, who served as the White House chief digital officer between 2017 and 2020, said he thinks Twitter has experienced a “dropoff in its relevance” in politics and advocacy, particularly after it banned political ads. That’s something its new CEO will have to contend with, he said.</p>
<p>“For users, Twitter has become a platform for journalists in Washington, and it’s the least widely-used of the major platforms when it comes to the general public,” said Rinat, now the CEO of the influencer marketing technology platform Urban Legend. “Innovation at Twitter seems to have stalled.”</p>
<p>Agrawal, a machine learning expert who has been Twitter’s chief technology officer since 2017, has offered no apparent signs that he is inclined to reverse course.</p>
<p>Like Dorsey himself, Agrawal has spoken of global political speech in the public interest as an important part of discourse on Twitter. He said shortly before the 2020 election that “there’s certain content from elected officials that is important for the public to see and hear.” But he told the MIT Technology Review at that time that it’s difficult to flesh out what makes a ”healthy public conversation,” adding that defining misinformation is “the existential question of our times.”</p>
<p>Some conservatives said they see little prospect for change at Twitter, with or without Dorsey, especially in the fight over what they call Silicon Valley’s pervasive censorship of the right. “The communists will run Twitter soon,” <a href="https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1465328458037448712?s=20">tweeted</a> right-wing commentator Candace Owens after the news of Dorsey’s departure broke.</p>
<p>But the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which brought Dorsey in to testify last year, said he’s willing to give Twitter’s new leadership a chance to change its ways.</p>
<p>“Under Dorsey’s leadership, we have continued to see Twitter unfairly block access to content and suspend users for expressing their views,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an email. “I hope the next Twitter CEO actually makes important changes that welcome free speech and do not censor conservative viewpoints.”</p>
<p>A change is overdue, said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who was <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/jim-banks-says-tweet-should-spark-transgender-conversation/">suspended from Twitter</a> last month after the company said he had <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/rep-jim-banks-suspended-twitter-misgendering-trans-government-official-dr-n1282233">violated its hateful conduct policy</a> with remarks about a Biden administration official who is transgender.</p>
<p>“That a change in leadership at a tech company is rightly seen as a political event with serious ramifications for free speech tells you all you need to know,” Banks said. “Twitter cannot be more powerful than elected representatives.”</p>
<p>Some GOP figures have already started to sift through Agrawal’s old tweets and public statements for ammunition on these fights. Those include an <a href="https://twitter.com/paraga/status/28773976508">11-year-old tweet</a> in which Agrawal — who had not yet joined Twitter — wrote that “if they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.”</p>
<p>Agrawal quickly noted at the time that <a href="https://twitter.com/paraga/status/28774643884">he was quoting a correspondent</a> from “The Daily Show,” but the original tweet was racking up thousands of retweets and quote-tweets on Monday.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hjKvy0hLU">a 2020 interview</a> with the MIT Technology Review, Agrawal responded to a question about balancing First Amendment protections with the fight against disinformation by saying: “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation.” And that, he said, raises questions about Twitter’s decisions to promote some kinds of content over others.</p>
<p>Courts have repeatedly ruled that, unlike the government, social media companies like Twitter are not prohibited by the First Amendment from limiting users’ speech.</p>
<p>“It looks like we might have gone from bad to worse,” said Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “Some of Parag’s comments raise concerns about his respect for free speech.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Democrats see misinformation and extremist content as more pressing issues that Agrawal must address.</p>
<p>“Twitter still has much work to do on troubling issues the platform is facing, including the proliferation of hate speech, disinformation, and violence incitement,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), chair of Senate Judiciary’s privacy and technology subcommittee, in an email Monday.</p>
<p>Twitter “needs a principled guardian who will uphold its policies and be willing to take bold action to protect democracies,” said House Energy and Commerce consumer protection Chair Jan Schakowsky, whose panel hauled in Dorsey to testify earlier this year. She also complained that Twitter “continues to pursue invasive surveillance advertising and pander to Wall Street.”</p>
<p>Twitter emphasized that the company’s content moderation decisions come from its trust and safety team — not the CEO. “We’ve been clear for years that policy enforcement decisions are made by our Trust and Safety team which report to our head of legal, public policy and trust and safety Vijaya Gadde,” said Twitter spokesperson Katie Rosborough. “Jack is informed of these decisions.”</p>
<p>Rosborough did not respond to questions about whether Twitter intends to reverse its political ads ban or Trump’s suspension.</p>
<p>Gadde was central to the decision to ban Trump from the platform in January. Dorsey, who was in French Polynesia at the time, deferred to Gadde despite his own concerns about the move, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/twitter-donald-trump-jack-dorsey.html">New York Times reported</a>.</p>
<p>Gadde is one of the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/28/twitter-vijaya-gadde-free-speech-policies-technology-social-media-429221">important fixtures of Dorsey’s tenure</a> who remain in place for now. In a <a href="https://twitter.com/vijaya/status/1465350951766671360">tweet on Monday</a>, she quoted author Salman Rushdie: “Any story worth its salt can handle a little shaking up.” </p>
<p>Dorsey, whose latest stint as CEO began in 2015, will serve on Twitter’s board until mid-2022. He is also still the CEO of the payments company Square.</p>
<p>As CEO, Agrawal will be forced to carve out his own path as a Democratic-run Washington considers overhauling Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute that allows social media platforms to avoid lawsuits over how they handle online speech. The social media industry also faces lawmakers’ scrutiny over its use of algorithms, an issue given new prominence by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.</p>
<p>Just about the only tech controversy Twitter has managed to escape is the threat of the federal antitrust probes and lawsuits besetting the industry giants Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon.</p>
<p>Agrawal will also have to decide whether to keep Trump suspended — especially as the former president mulls another run in 2024.</p>
<p>Trump was one of Twitter’s most prolific users, shooting off a relentless stream of tweets that <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/28/joe-biden-donald-trump-twitter-ban-463384">dictated news cycles</a> and forced social media platforms to create policies on the fly about what politicians can and can’t say. Biden, meanwhile, has maintained a muted presence on the social media platform — although Twitter continues to dominate political headlines as it <a href="https://www.wane.com/news/local-news/im-back-rep-jim-banks-has-twitter-account-restored-joins-bill-to-crack-down-on-big-tech/">boots</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/17/house-gosar-censure-aoc-video-522794">elected officials</a> for violating its policies.</p>
<p>Besides weighing in on some of those politically fraught decisions, Dorsey also <a href="https://www.protocol.com/workplace/twitter-ethical-ai-meta">signed off on investing significant resources</a> into rebuilding Twitter’s ethics and machine learning team<b>, </b>whose job is to help build societally responsible technologies. And he has heralded Project Bluesky, Twitter’s effort to create a “standard for social media that would help better control abusive and misleading information on its platform” — essentially, a decentralized platform that Twitter and rival social networks could all build off.</p>
<p>Agrawal once led Project Bluesky. His elevation to CEO could indicate that that project and artificial intelligence will be at the forefront of Twitter’s strategy.</p>
<p>Dorsey’s departure was met with celebration and some trepidation from MAGA-world, which has ramped up its battle against Twitter since the platform booted Trump in January. “Bye!” Brad Parscale, Trump’s former campaign manager and digital strategist, said in a text to POLITICO. “He was a complete disaster. No one has done more to destroy the 1st amendment in this country.”</p>
<p>Jason Miller, Trump’s former spokesman and CEO of the new <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/01/gettr-trump-social-media-platform-497606">right-wing social media platform GETTR</a>, used Dorsey’s departure to tout his own social media platform. “Dorsey’s strangling of free expression is why GETTR needs to exist, and for that I suppose we should all be grateful,” Miller said. “Unlike Dorsey, GETTR is here to stay.”</p>
</div>||||I|||| Skip to Main Content

 Politico Logo

 * Congress Minutes
 * Pro
 * E&E News
 * Search
 Search

 SECTIONS

 * Congress
 * Elections
 * White House
 * Magazine
 * Video
 * Podcasts
 * Congress Minutes

 SERIES

 * The Fifty
 * Women Rule

 POLITICO LIVE

 * About POLITICO Live
 * Upcoming Events
 * Previous Events

 NEWSLETTERS

 * Playbook
 * Playbook PM
 * POLITICO Nightly
 * West Wing Playbook
 * The Recast
 * Huddle
 * All Newsletters

 COLUMNISTS & CARTOONS

 * John Harris
 * Alex Burns
 * Jonathan Martin
 * Michael Schaffer
 * Jack Shafer
 * Rich Lowry
 * Matt Wuerker
 * Cartoon Carousel

 POLICY

 * Agriculture
 * Cannabis
 * Cybersecurity
 * Defense
 * Education
 * Employment & Immigration
 * Energy & Environment
 * Finance & Tax
 * Health Care
 * Space
 * Sustainability
 * Technology
 * Trade
 * Transportation

 EDITIONS

 * California
 * Canada
 * Florida
 * New Jersey
 * New York

 Europe

 * Brussels
 * United Kingdom

 Follow us

 * Twitter
 * Instagram
 * Facebook
 * My Account
 * 

 Technology

 Twitter’s CEO is leaving. The storms that consumed his company won’t end.

 Conservative activists and lawmakers immediately began heaping attacks on Jack Dorsey's chosen successor, Parag Agrawal.

 Some conservatives said they see little prospect for change at Twitter, with or without Dorsey, especially in the fight over what they call Silicon Valley’s pervasive censorship of the right. | Jeff Chiu, File/AP Photo

 By Emily Birnbaum and Alexandra S. Levine

 11/29/2021 08:05 PM EST

 * 
 * 
 * 

 + Link Copied

 * 
 + 
 + 
 + 

 The partisan fury that consumed Twitter during much of Jack Dorsey’s tenure as CEO immediately transferred to his hand-picked successor on Monday — especially from the right.

 Conservative activists and lawmakers heaped attacks on new CEO Parag Agrawal for a caustic 11-year-old tweet condemning anti-Muslim bigotry and some of his past remarks about free speech. Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, said they’re still looking for the company to clean up its handling of ills such as disinformation, hate speech and invasions of privacy.

 Whatever direction Twitter takes post-Dorsey, the social media platform that he founded in 2006 as a forum for “short burst[s]” of seemingly “inconsequential information” promises to continue having an outsize impact on American politics in 2022 and beyond, even without a co-founder at the helm.

 Dorsey made waves in Washington as he steered the company into the center of partisan feuds, including Twitter’s decisions to ban political ads before the 2020 election, aggressively fact-check misinformation and then permanently suspend Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

 Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 19, 2015. | Richard Drew, File/AP Photo

 He has also aggravated lawmakers by trolling them on Twitter and ramped up his company’s long-standing rivalry with its larger, far wealthier competitor Facebook.

 Twitter showed no immediate signs it plans to deviate from the path set by Dorsey, who in recent years installed a politically minded lieutenant and created ethics-focused teams within the company to guide these kinds of decisions. But any transition at the top of the company offers at least the prospect of a new start with Twitter’s critics in Washington.

 “There are a number of areas in which the company probably wants to take a step back and have a reset,” said Adam Sharp, who founded Twitter’s politics team and left the company in 2016. Sharp said Twitter will likely have to reevaluate its policies on political speech, including whether elected officials should face “any certain protections or restrictions that do not apply to the traditional private citizens” and how to tackle misinformation.

 Ory Rinat, who served as the White House chief digital officer between 2017 and 2020, said he thinks Twitter has experienced a “dropoff in its relevance” in politics and advocacy, particularly after it banned political ads. That’s something its new CEO will have to contend with, he said.

 “For users, Twitter has become a platform for journalists in Washington, and it’s the least widely-used of the major platforms when it comes to the general public,” said Rinat, now the CEO of the influencer marketing technology platform Urban Legend. “Innovation at Twitter seems to have stalled.”

 Agrawal, a machine learning expert who has been Twitter’s chief technology officer since 2017, has offered no apparent signs that he is inclined to reverse course.

 Like Dorsey himself, Agrawal has spoken of global political speech in the public interest as an important part of discourse on Twitter. He said shortly before the 2020 election that “there’s certain content from elected officials that is important for the public to see and hear.” But he told the MIT Technology Review at that time that it’s difficult to flesh out what makes a ”healthy public conversation,” adding that defining misinformation is “the existential question of our times.”

 Some conservatives said they see little prospect for change at Twitter, with or without Dorsey, especially in the fight over what they call Silicon Valley’s pervasive censorship of the right. “The communists will run Twitter soon,” tweeted right-wing commentator Candace Owens after the news of Dorsey’s departure broke.

 This is the right take. I’ve been telling people for years. Jack Dorsey is not your enemy. He is a prisoner at his own company.
 Good thing the Parler app is finally working properly and looks amazing. The communists will fully run Twitter soon. https://t.co/2hIXG6UETB

 — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) November 29, 2021

 But the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which brought Dorsey in to testify last year, said he’s willing to give Twitter’s new leadership a chance to change its ways.

 “Under Dorsey’s leadership, we have continued to see Twitter unfairly block access to content and suspend users for expressing their views,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an email. “I hope the next Twitter CEO actually makes important changes that welcome free speech and do not censor conservative viewpoints.”

 A change is overdue, said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who was suspended from Twitter last month after the company said he had violated its hateful conduct policy with remarks about a Biden administration official who is transgender.

 “That a change in leadership at a tech company is rightly seen as a political event with serious ramifications for free speech tells you all you need to know,” Banks said. “Twitter cannot be more powerful than elected representatives.”

 Some GOP figures have already started to sift through Agrawal’s old tweets and public statements for ammunition on these fights. Those include an 11-year-old tweet in which Agrawal — who had not yet joined Twitter — wrote that “if they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.”

 Agrawal quickly noted at the time that he was quoting a correspondent from “The Daily Show,” but the original tweet was racking up thousands of retweets and quote-tweets on Monday.

 Parag Agrawal has been named new CEO of Twitter. | Ellian Raffoul/Courtesy of Twitter via AP

 In a 2020 interview with the MIT Technology Review, Agrawal responded to a question about balancing First Amendment protections with the fight against disinformation by saying: “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation.” And that, he said, raises questions about Twitter’s decisions to promote some kinds of content over others.

 Courts have repeatedly ruled that, unlike the government, social media companies like Twitter are not prohibited by the First Amendment from limiting users’ speech.

 “It looks like we might have gone from bad to worse,” said Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “Some of Parag’s comments raise concerns about his respect for free speech.”

 Meanwhile, Democrats see misinformation and extremist content as more pressing issues that Agrawal must address.

 “Twitter still has much work to do on troubling issues the platform is facing, including the proliferation of hate speech, disinformation, and violence incitement,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), chair of Senate Judiciary’s privacy and technology subcommittee, in an email Monday.

 Twitter “needs a principled guardian who will uphold its policies and be willing to take bold action to protect democracies,” said House Energy and Commerce consumer protection Chair Jan Schakowsky, whose panel hauled in Dorsey to testify earlier this year. She also complained that Twitter “continues to pursue invasive surveillance advertising and pander to Wall Street.”

 Twitter emphasized that the company’s content moderation decisions come from its trust and safety team — not the CEO. “We’ve been clear for years that policy enforcement decisions are made by our Trust and Safety team which report to our head of legal, public policy and trust and safety Vijaya Gadde,” said Twitter spokesperson Katie Rosborough. “Jack is informed of these decisions.”

 Rosborough did not respond to questions about whether Twitter intends to reverse its political ads ban or Trump’s suspension.

 Gadde was central to the decision to ban Trump from the platform in January. Dorsey, who was in French Polynesia at the time, deferred to Gadde despite his own concerns about the move, the New York Times reported.

 Gadde is one of the important fixtures of Dorsey’s tenure who remain in place for now. In a tweet on Monday, she quoted author Salman Rushdie: “Any story worth its salt can handle a little shaking up.”

 Dorsey, whose latest stint as CEO began in 2015, will serve on Twitter’s board until mid-2022. He is also still the CEO of the payments company Square.

 As CEO, Agrawal will be forced to carve out his own path as a Democratic-run Washington considers overhauling Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute that allows social media platforms to avoid lawsuits over how they handle online speech. The social media industry also faces lawmakers’ scrutiny over its use of algorithms, an issue given new prominence by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

 Just about the only tech controversy Twitter has managed to escape is the threat of the federal antitrust probes and lawsuits besetting the industry giants Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon.

 Agrawal will also have to decide whether to keep Trump suspended — especially as the former president mulls another run in 2024.

 Trump was one of Twitter’s most prolific users, shooting off a relentless stream of tweets that dictated news cycles and forced social media platforms to create policies on the fly about what politicians can and can’t say. Biden, meanwhile, has maintained a muted presence on the social media platform — although Twitter continues to dominate political headlines as it boots elected officials for violating its policies.

 Besides weighing in on some of those politically fraught decisions, Dorsey also signed off on investing significant resources into rebuilding Twitter’s ethics and machine learning team, whose job is to help build societally responsible technologies. And he has heralded Project Bluesky, Twitter’s effort to create a “standard for social media that would help better control abusive and misleading information on its platform” — essentially, a decentralized platform that Twitter and rival social networks could all build off.

 Agrawal once led Project Bluesky. His elevation to CEO could indicate that that project and artificial intelligence will be at the forefront of Twitter’s strategy.

 Dorsey’s departure was met with celebration and some trepidation from MAGA-world, which has ramped up its battle against Twitter since the platform booted Trump in January. “Bye!” Brad Parscale, Trump’s former campaign manager and digital strategist, said in a text to POLITICO. “He was a complete disaster. No one has done more to destroy the 1st amendment in this country.”

 Jason Miller, Trump’s former spokesman and CEO of the new right-wing social media platform GETTR, used Dorsey’s departure to tout his own social media platform. “Dorsey’s strangling of free expression is why GETTR needs to exist, and for that I suppose we should all be grateful,” Miller said. “Unlike Dorsey, GETTR is here to stay.”

 * Filed under:
 * Twitter,
 * First Amendment,
 * Donald Trump,
 * Donald Trump 2020,
 * Chris Coons,
 * Jim Jordan,
 * Jack Dorsey,
 * Jason Miller,
 * Jim Banks,
 * Parag Agrawal
 POLITICO
 * 
 * 
 * 

 + Link Copied

 * 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 * About Us
 * Advertising
 * Breaking News Alerts
 * Careers
 * Credit Card Payments
 * Digital Edition
 * FAQ
 * Feedback
 * Headlines
 * Photos
 * POWERJobs
 * Press
 * Print Subscriptions
 * Request A Correction
 * Write For Us
 * RSS
 * Site Map
 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Do not sell my info
 * Notice to California Residents

 © 2023 POLITICO LLC

Dorsey made waves in Washington as he steered the company into the center of partisan feuds, including Twitter’s decisions to ban political ads before the 2020 election, aggressively fact-check misinformation and then permanently suspend Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
He has also aggravated lawmakers by trolling them on Twitter and ramped up his company’s long-standing rivalry with its larger, far wealthier competitor Facebook.
Twitter showed no immediate signs it plans to deviate from the path set by Dorsey, who in recent years installed a politically minded lieutenant and created ethics-focused teams within the company to guide these kinds of decisions. But any transition at the top of the company offers at least the prospect of a new start with Twitter’s critics in Washington.
“There are a number of areas in which the company probably wants to take a step back and have a reset,” said Adam Sharp, who founded Twitter’s politics team and left the company in 2016. Sharp said Twitter will likely have to reevaluate its policies on political speech, including whether elected officials should face “any certain protections or restrictions that do not apply to the traditional private citizens” and how to tackle misinformation.
Ory Rinat, who served as the White House chief digital officer between 2017 and 2020, said he thinks Twitter has experienced a “dropoff in its relevance” in politics and advocacy, particularly after it banned political ads. That’s something its new CEO will have to contend with, he said.
“For users, Twitter has become a platform for journalists in Washington, and it’s the least widely-used of the major platforms when it comes to the general public,” said Rinat, now the CEO of the influencer marketing technology platform Urban Legend. “Innovation at Twitter seems to have stalled.”
Agrawal, a machine learning expert who has been Twitter’s chief technology officer since 2017, has offered no apparent signs that he is inclined to reverse course.
Like Dorsey himself, Agrawal has spoken of global political speech in the public interest as an important part of discourse on Twitter. He said shortly before the 2020 election that “there’s certain content from elected officials that is important for the public to see and hear.” But he told the MIT Technology Review at that time that it’s difficult to flesh out what makes a ”healthy public conversation,” adding that defining misinformation is “the existential question of our times.”
Some conservatives said they see little prospect for change at Twitter, with or without Dorsey, especially in the fight over what they call Silicon Valley’s pervasive censorship of the right. “The communists will run Twitter soon,” tweeted right-wing commentator Candace Owens after the news of Dorsey’s departure broke.
But the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which brought Dorsey in to testify last year, said he’s willing to give Twitter’s new leadership a chance to change its ways.
“Under Dorsey’s leadership, we have continued to see Twitter unfairly block access to content and suspend users for expressing their views,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an email. “I hope the next Twitter CEO actually makes important changes that welcome free speech and do not censor conservative viewpoints.”
A change is overdue, said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who was suspended from Twitter last month after the company said he had violated its hateful conduct policy with remarks about a Biden administration official who is transgender.
“That a change in leadership at a tech company is rightly seen as a political event with serious ramifications for free speech tells you all you need to know,” Banks said. “Twitter cannot be more powerful than elected representatives.”
Some GOP figures have already started to sift through Agrawal’s old tweets and public statements for ammunition on these fights. Those include an 11-year-old tweet in which Agrawal — who had not yet joined Twitter — wrote that “if they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.”
Agrawal quickly noted at the time that he was quoting a correspondent from “The Daily Show,” but the original tweet was racking up thousands of retweets and quote-tweets on Monday.
In a 2020 interview with the MIT Technology Review, Agrawal responded to a question about balancing First Amendment protections with the fight against disinformation by saying: “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation.” And that, he said, raises questions about Twitter’s decisions to promote some kinds of content over others.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that, unlike the government, social media companies like Twitter are not prohibited by the First Amendment from limiting users’ speech.
“It looks like we might have gone from bad to worse,” said Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “Some of Parag’s comments raise concerns about his respect for free speech.”
Meanwhile, Democrats see misinformation and extremist content as more pressing issues that Agrawal must address.
“Twitter still has much work to do on troubling issues the platform is facing, including the proliferation of hate speech, disinformation, and violence incitement,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), chair of Senate Judiciary’s privacy and technology subcommittee, in an email Monday.
Twitter “needs a principled guardian who will uphold its policies and be willing to take bold action to protect democracies,” said House Energy and Commerce consumer protection Chair Jan Schakowsky, whose panel hauled in Dorsey to testify earlier this year. She also complained that Twitter “continues to pursue invasive surveillance advertising and pander to Wall Street.”
Twitter emphasized that the company’s content moderation decisions come from its trust and safety team — not the CEO. “We’ve been clear for years that policy enforcement decisions are made by our Trust and Safety team which report to our head of legal, public policy and trust and safety Vijaya Gadde,” said Twitter spokesperson Katie Rosborough. “Jack is informed of these decisions.”
Rosborough did not respond to questions about whether Twitter intends to reverse its political ads ban or Trump’s suspension.
Gadde was central to the decision to ban Trump from the platform in January. Dorsey, who was in French Polynesia at the time, deferred to Gadde despite his own concerns about the move, the New York Times reported.
Gadde is one of the important fixtures of Dorsey’s tenure who remain in place for now. In a tweet on Monday, she quoted author Salman Rushdie: “Any story worth its salt can handle a little shaking up.” 
Dorsey, whose latest stint as CEO began in 2015, will serve on Twitter’s board until mid-2022. He is also still the CEO of the payments company Square.
As CEO, Agrawal will be forced to carve out his own path as a Democratic-run Washington considers overhauling Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute that allows social media platforms to avoid lawsuits over how they handle online speech. The social media industry also faces lawmakers’ scrutiny over its use of algorithms, an issue given new prominence by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
Just about the only tech controversy Twitter has managed to escape is the threat of the federal antitrust probes and lawsuits besetting the industry giants Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon.
Agrawal will also have to decide whether to keep Trump suspended — especially as the former president mulls another run in 2024.
Trump was one of Twitter’s most prolific users, shooting off a relentless stream of tweets that dictated news cycles and forced social media platforms to create policies on the fly about what politicians can and can’t say. Biden, meanwhile, has maintained a muted presence on the social media platform — although Twitter continues to dominate political headlines as it boots elected officials for violating its policies.
Besides weighing in on some of those politically fraught decisions, Dorsey also signed off on investing significant resources into rebuilding Twitter’s ethics and machine learning team, whose job is to help build societally responsible technologies. And he has heralded Project Bluesky, Twitter’s effort to create a “standard for social media that would help better control abusive and misleading information on its platform” — essentially, a decentralized platform that Twitter and rival social networks could all build off.
Agrawal once led Project Bluesky. His elevation to CEO could indicate that that project and artificial intelligence will be at the forefront of Twitter’s strategy.
Dorsey’s departure was met with celebration and some trepidation from MAGA-world, which has ramped up its battle against Twitter since the platform booted Trump in January. “Bye!” Brad Parscale, Trump’s former campaign manager and digital strategist, said in a text to POLITICO. “He was a complete disaster. No one has done more to destroy the 1st amendment in this country.”
Jason Miller, Trump’s former spokesman and CEO of the new right-wing social media platform GETTR, used Dorsey’s departure to tout his own social media platform. “Dorsey’s strangling of free expression is why GETTR needs to exist, and for that I suppose we should all be grateful,” Miller said. “Unlike Dorsey, GETTR is here to stay.”
Twitter’s CEO is leaving. The storms that consumed his company won’t end.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/29/twitter-dorsey-agrawal-ceo-523492
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/central-bucks-school-board-politics-pennsylvania.html
While Politics Consume School Board Meetings, a Very Different Crisis Festers
2021-12-01
Campbell Robertson
<div><article><div><p>Advertisement</p><p><a href="#after-top">SKIP ADVERTISEMENT</a></p></div><header><p>In a wealthy suburban Philadelphia district, schools are struggling with shortages of all sorts. Behavioral problems have mushroomed. “We are in triage mode,” one teacher said.</p><div><figure><div></div><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div></header><section><div><p>DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — Early in the November school board meeting, a few of the departing members made farewell remarks, talking of things that they believed still need addressing: more special education programs, mental health initiatives, a program for high school students to take college classes. There was a long list, but over the past two years other things had gotten in the way.</p><p>When the meeting opened up to public comments, there was an indication of what those other things might be. Parents and other residents took turns standing before the board, speaking about Zionism, Maoism, slavery, freedom, the Holocaust, critical race theory, the illegality of mask requirements, supposed Jewish ties to organized crime and the viral falsehood that transgender students were raping people in bathrooms. </p><p>“I fight here week after week,” one woman said, “to ensure that my children will never be subject to having their freedom taken from them.”</p></div><div><p>In the Central Bucks School District, a hot spot in the national school board wars just outside of Philadelphia, there is a striking disconnect between the crises that have consumed school board meetings for well more than a year and the emergencies that teachers, nurses, custodians, secretaries and other staff members say they are facing when they show up at school each morning.</p></div><div><figure><div><p></p></div><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div><div><p>Schools across the country are dealing with an array of urgent challenges this year, and Central Bucks, one of the largest and wealthiest districts in Pennsylvania, is no exception. In nearly two dozen interviews, school workers described shortages everywhere, from bus drivers to substitute teachers to support staff to milk. Nurses are overwhelmed with the demands of contact tracing from Covid-19 cases and paperwork for hundreds of requested exemptions from a school mask requirement. </p><p>Custodians, after more than a year of deep-cleaning classrooms, are now cleaning up broken sinks and disgusting messes after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/devious-licks-tiktok.html">a spate of TikTok challenges</a>, viral dares on social media that led to so much vandalism that nearly all of the bathrooms in some schools had to be closed.</p><p>And with the ranks of classroom support staff worryingly thin, everyone talks of an alarming crisis in student mental health, a concern already serious before the disruptions of Covid-19. Behavioral problems have mushroomed, there have been suicides and attempted suicides, and a huge share of students seem to have become disconnected, at a loss when asked to do things as simple as gather into groups.</p><p>“We are in triage mode,” said Elizabeth Coyne, a family consumer science teacher whose teaching partner went on maternity leave, leaving a vacancy that no appropriately certified substitute showed up to fill.</p></div><div><p>But even as debates about schools have consumed the community, the reality of what is going on inside them has remained largely overlooked, school employees said. </p><p>The disputes at school board meetings, though still framed as disagreements over what is best for students, have grown into a virtually self-perpetuating conflict, with parents rising to decry their opponents’ posts on social media or list the insults that have been directed their way.</p></div><div><figure><div><p></p></div><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div><div><p>“You want to jump up and say, ‘This is not really what we need to be talking about!’” said Deborah Wysocki, who teaches eighth-grade science. “We really need to be talking about the fact that there are 29 students in a room that holds 24. Or we need to be talking about the fact that your learning support students” — children who need the attention of education assistants — “aren’t getting it so that those assistants can go babysit kids in the auditorium who don’t have a substitute.”</p><p>The conflicts over schools began brewing here as soon as the pandemic arrived, starting with disagreements over plans for reopening schools. Teachers and others in the schools readily acknowledge that these decisions entailed difficult trade-offs, with repercussions they are now dealing with in the classroom.</p></div><div><p>“You need to teach kids in school,” said Bob Martin, a third-grade teacher who described signs of learning loss shown by some students who had been in school remotely. But it also became clear in those early days how many people had health conditions that left them vulnerable to Covid-19. “You start to realize a lot of people are compromised in one way or another.”</p><p>The district ultimately offered in-person instruction at least part time for nearly all of last year. But in the comments sections of private Facebook groups, amid an ever-polarizing national political climate, positions in the community quickly calcified across a broad range of issues, from masks and vaccines to curriculum and library books. </p><p>Board meetings grew long and raucous; neighbors who were once friendly became committed foes, death threats were issued, and harassment spread to board members and even to their families. By the summer, police officers were at the school board meetings. A rally before one meeting was canceled when <a href="https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/story/news/2021/09/16/extremism-report-says-proud-american-patriots-network-bucks-has-militia-roots/5751486001/">alarms went up about the possible presence of a militia</a>.</p><p>While some school employees lament the lack of attention on pressing issues amid all the fury, others have found themselves under a scrutiny they had never experienced before. For years, a middle school chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance kept a small library; in October, the library showed up in an anonymous video, accompanied by horror movie music, that circulated in the district and prompted a review of the library’s contents by the school.</p></div><div><figure><div><p></p></div><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div><div><p>“I wish coming into my classroom doing a lesson these days could be the first thing on my mind, but it isn’t,” said Keith Willard, a social studies teacher for 21 years and the chapter’s sponsor. “Over the past few months, I’ve really begun to reconsider my career.”</p><p>The superintendent, Abram Lucabaugh, said he was spending a lot of time with lawyers these days, with the district now facing several lawsuits. He would rather be addressing urgent school matters, he said, the most serious of which is the state of student mental health. </p><p>He attributed student struggles partly to reacclimation after the disruptions of Covid-19, but also to the “vitriolic” political atmosphere surrounding schools these days.</p><p>“I’m seeing that play out among the adults far more than among the students,” he said. But he said it naturally affected the students, too.</p><p>In early November, elections took place for the Central Bucks school board. This year’s races were fueled by big-money PACs and featured attack websites and fake campaign fliers. The candidates running against a mask requirement won three of the five seats up for election, victories that supporters hailed as a long overdue return to normalcy.</p></div><div><p>But as they head into work each day, exhausted and overstretched, the school staff are left to consider what normalcy might now actually look like.</p></div><div><figure><div><p></p></div><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div><div><p>All throughout the pandemic, Lisa Rothenberger, an education assistant who works with students with special needs, has spent her days with children requiring constant face-to-face attention. Some of them could never wear masks, regardless of their parents’ views. It is unclear to her whether people are aware of the work she does — her union, which represents the assistants, custodians and other support staff, has not had a contract for months.</p><p>But she does not have time, she said, to think much about what is happening at the school board meetings. And anyway, the feeling appears to be mutual.</p><p>“I just don’t think they’re thinking about us,” she said.</p></div></section><div><p>A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Schools in Bind As Bitter Feuds Cripple Board</p></div><div><p>Advertisement</p><p><a href="#after-bottom">SKIP ADVERTISEMENT</a></p></div></article></div>||||I|||| Skip to contentSkip to site index
 U.S.
 Today’s Paper
 U.S. | While Politics Consume School Board Meetings, a Very Different Crisis Festers
 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/central-bucks-school-board-politics-pennsylvania.html
 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 457

 Advertisement

 SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

 Supported by

 SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

 While Politics Consume School Board Meetings, a Very Different Crisis Festers

 In a wealthy suburban Philadelphia district, schools are struggling with shortages of all sorts. Behavioral problems have mushroomed. “We are in triage mode,” one teacher said.

 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 457

 In the Central Bucks School District, outside Philadelphia, the debate at school board meetings can seem disconnected from the crises brewing inside the schools. Credit... Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times

 By Campbell Robertson

 Dec. 1, 2021

 DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — Early in the November school board meeting, a few of the departing members made farewell remarks, talking of things that they believed still need addressing: more special education programs, mental health initiatives, a program for high school students to take college classes. There was a long list, but over the past two years other things had gotten in the way.

 When the meeting opened up to public comments, there was an indication of what those other things might be. Parents and other residents took turns standing before the board, speaking about Zionism, Maoism, slavery, freedom, the Holocaust, critical race theory, the illegality of mask requirements, supposed Jewish ties to organized crime and the viral falsehood that transgender students were raping people in bathrooms.

 “I fight here week after week,” one woman said, “to ensure that my children will never be subject to having their freedom taken from them.”

 In the Central Bucks School District, a hot spot in the national school board wars just outside of Philadelphia, there is a striking disconnect between the crises that have consumed school board meetings for well more than a year and the emergencies that teachers, nurses, custodians, secretaries and other staff members say they are facing when they show up at school each morning.

 Image

 Parents lined up outside the Central Bucks School District administration building in Doylestown, Pa. At issue was whether schools would open with or without a mask mandate. Credit... Emma Lee/WHYY

 Schools across the country are dealing with an array of urgent challenges this year, and Central Bucks, one of the largest and wealthiest districts in Pennsylvania, is no exception. In nearly two dozen interviews, school workers described shortages everywhere, from bus drivers to substitute teachers to support staff to milk. Nurses are overwhelmed with the demands of contact tracing from Covid-19 cases and paperwork for hundreds of requested exemptions from a school mask requirement.

 Custodians, after more than a year of deep-cleaning classrooms, are now cleaning up broken sinks and disgusting messes after a spate of TikTok challenges, viral dares on social media that led to so much vandalism that nearly all of the bathrooms in some schools had to be closed.

 And with the ranks of classroom support staff worryingly thin, everyone talks of an alarming crisis in student mental health, a concern already serious before the disruptions of Covid-19. Behavioral problems have mushroomed, there have been suicides and attempted suicides, and a huge share of students seem to have become disconnected, at a loss when asked to do things as simple as gather into groups.

 “We are in triage mode,” said Elizabeth Coyne, a family consumer science teacher whose teaching partner went on maternity leave, leaving a vacancy that no appropriately certified substitute showed up to fill.

 But even as debates about schools have consumed the community, the reality of what is going on inside them has remained largely overlooked, school employees said.

 The disputes at school board meetings, though still framed as disagreements over what is best for students, have grown into a virtually self-perpetuating conflict, with parents rising to decry their opponents’ posts on social media or list the insults that have been directed their way.

 Image

 Elizabeth Coyne, 41, teaches family and consumer science at Lenape Middle School. When her teaching partner went on maternity leave, there was no appropriately certified substitute to take her place. Credit... Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times

 “You want to jump up and say, ‘This is not really what we need to be talking about!’” said Deborah Wysocki, who teaches eighth-grade science. “We really need to be talking about the fact that there are 29 students in a room that holds 24. Or we need to be talking about the fact that your learning support students” — children who need the attention of education assistants — “aren’t getting it so that those assistants can go babysit kids in the auditorium who don’t have a substitute.”

 The conflicts over schools began brewing here as soon as the pandemic arrived, starting with disagreements over plans for reopening schools. Teachers and others in the schools readily acknowledge that these decisions entailed difficult trade-offs, with repercussions they are now dealing with in the classroom.

 “You need to teach kids in school,” said Bob Martin, a third-grade teacher who described signs of learning loss shown by some students who had been in school remotely. But it also became clear in those early days how many people had health conditions that left them vulnerable to Covid-19. “You start to realize a lot of people are compromised in one way or another.”

 The district ultimately offered in-person instruction at least part time for nearly all of last year. But in the comments sections of private Facebook groups, amid an ever-polarizing national political climate, positions in the community quickly calcified across a broad range of issues, from masks and vaccines to curriculum and library books.

 Board meetings grew long and raucous; neighbors who were once friendly became committed foes, death threats were issued, and harassment spread to board members and even to their families. By the summer, police officers were at the school board meetings. A rally before one meeting was canceled when alarms went up about the possible presence of a militia.

 While some school employees lament the lack of attention on pressing issues amid all the fury, others have found themselves under a scrutiny they had never experienced before. For years, a middle school chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance kept a small library; in October, the library showed up in an anonymous video, accompanied by horror movie music, that circulated in the district and prompted a review of the library’s contents by the school.

 Image

 Parents gathered outside a Central Bucks school board meeting where face masks were debated. Credit... Emma Lee/WHYY

 “I wish coming into my classroom doing a lesson these days could be the first thing on my mind, but it isn’t,” said Keith Willard, a social studies teacher for 21 years and the chapter’s sponsor. “Over the past few months, I’ve really begun to reconsider my career.”

 The superintendent, Abram Lucabaugh, said he was spending a lot of time with lawyers these days, with the district now facing several lawsuits. He would rather be addressing urgent school matters, he said, the most serious of which is the state of student mental health.

 He attributed student struggles partly to reacclimation after the disruptions of Covid-19, but also to the “vitriolic” political atmosphere surrounding schools these days.

 “I’m seeing that play out among the adults far more than among the students,” he said. But he said it naturally affected the students, too.

 In early November, elections took place for the Central Bucks school board. This year’s races were fueled by big-money PACs and featured attack websites and fake campaign fliers. The candidates running against a mask requirement won three of the five seats up for election, victories that supporters hailed as a long overdue return to normalcy.

 But as they head into work each day, exhausted and overstretched, the school staff are left to consider what normalcy might now actually look like.

 Image

 Lisa Rothenberger, 59, an education assistant in special education at Bridge Valley Elementary School. Her union hasn’t had a contract for months. Credit... Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times

 All throughout the pandemic, Lisa Rothenberger, an education assistant who works with students with special needs, has spent her days with children requiring constant face-to-face attention. Some of them could never wear masks, regardless of their parents’ views. It is unclear to her whether people are aware of the work she does — her union, which represents the assistants, custodians and other support staff, has not had a contract for months.

 But she does not have time, she said, to think much about what is happening at the school board meetings. And anyway, the feeling appears to be mutual.

 “I just don’t think they’re thinking about us,” she said.

 A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Schools in Bind As Bitter Feuds Cripple Board . Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
 457
 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 457

 Advertisement

 SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

 Site Index

 Site Information Navigation

 * © 2023 The New York Times Company
 * NYTCo
 * Contact Us
 * Accessibility
 * Work with us
 * Advertise
 * T Brand Studio
 * Your Ad Choices
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Service
 * Terms of Sale
 * Site Map
 * Canada
 * International
 * Help
 * Subscriptions
 * Manage Privacy Preferences
Advertisement  SKIP ADVERTISEMENT    In a wealthy suburban Philadelphia district, schools are struggling with shortages of all sorts. Behavioral problems have mushroomed. “We are in triage mode,” one teacher said.            DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — Early in the November school board meeting, a few of the departing members made farewell remarks, talking of things that they believed still need addressing: more special education programs, mental health initiatives, a program for high school students to take college classes. There was a long list, but over the past two years other things had gotten in the way. When the meeting opened up to public comments, there was an indication of what those other things might be. Parents and other residents took turns standing before the board, speaking about Zionism, Maoism, slavery, freedom, the Holocaust, critical race theory, the illegality of mask requirements, supposed Jewish ties to organized crime and the viral falsehood that transgender students were raping people in bathrooms.  “I fight here week after week,” one woman said, “to ensure that my children will never be subject to having their freedom taken from them.”   In the Central Bucks School District, a hot spot in the national school board wars just outside of Philadelphia, there is a striking disconnect between the crises that have consumed school board meetings for well more than a year and the emergencies that teachers, nurses, custodians, secretaries and other staff members say they are facing when they show up at school each morning.             Schools across the country are dealing with an array of urgent challenges this year, and Central Bucks, one of the largest and wealthiest districts in Pennsylvania, is no exception. In nearly two dozen interviews, school workers described shortages everywhere, from bus drivers to substitute teachers to support staff to milk. Nurses are overwhelmed with the demands of contact tracing from Covid-19 cases and paperwork for hundreds of requested exemptions from a school mask requirement.  Custodians, after more than a year of deep-cleaning classrooms, are now cleaning up broken sinks and disgusting messes after a spate of TikTok challenges, viral dares on social media that led to so much vandalism that nearly all of the bathrooms in some schools had to be closed. And with the ranks of classroom support staff worryingly thin, everyone talks of an alarming crisis in student mental health, a concern already serious before the disruptions of Covid-19. Behavioral problems have mushroomed, there have been suicides and attempted suicides, and a huge share of students seem to have become disconnected, at a loss when asked to do things as simple as gather into groups. “We are in triage mode,” said Elizabeth Coyne, a family consumer science teacher whose teaching partner went on maternity leave, leaving a vacancy that no appropriately certified substitute showed up to fill.   But even as debates about schools have consumed the community, the reality of what is going on inside them has remained largely overlooked, school employees said.  The disputes at school board meetings, though still framed as disagreements over what is best for students, have grown into a virtually self-perpetuating conflict, with parents rising to decry their opponents’ posts on social media or list the insults that have been directed their way.             “You want to jump up and say, ‘This is not really what we need to be talking about!’” said Deborah Wysocki, who teaches eighth-grade science. “We really need to be talking about the fact that there are 29 students in a room that holds 24. Or we need to be talking about the fact that your learning support students” — children who need the attention of education assistants — “aren’t getting it so that those assistants can go babysit kids in the auditorium who don’t have a substitute.” The conflicts over schools began brewing here as soon as the pandemic arrived, starting with disagreements over plans for reopening schools. Teachers and others in the schools readily acknowledge that these decisions entailed difficult trade-offs, with repercussions they are now dealing with in the classroom.   “You need to teach kids in school,” said Bob Martin, a third-grade teacher who described signs of learning loss shown by some students who had been in school remotely. But it also became clear in those early days how many people had health conditions that left them vulnerable to Covid-19. “You start to realize a lot of people are compromised in one way or another.” The district ultimately offered in-person instruction at least part time for nearly all of last year. But in the comments sections of private Facebook groups, amid an ever-polarizing national political climate, positions in the community quickly calcified across a broad range of issues, from masks and vaccines to curriculum and library books.  Board meetings grew long and raucous; neighbors who were once friendly became committed foes, death threats were issued, and harassment spread to board members and even to their families. By the summer, police officers were at the school board meetings. A rally before one meeting was canceled when alarms went up about the possible presence of a militia. While some school employees lament the lack of attention on pressing issues amid all the fury, others have found themselves under a scrutiny they had never experienced before. For years, a middle school chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance kept a small library; in October, the library showed up in an anonymous video, accompanied by horror movie music, that circulated in the district and prompted a review of the library’s contents by the school.             “I wish coming into my classroom doing a lesson these days could be the first thing on my mind, but it isn’t,” said Keith Willard, a social studies teacher for 21 years and the chapter’s sponsor. “Over the past few months, I’ve really begun to reconsider my career.” The superintendent, Abram Lucabaugh, said he was spending a lot of time with lawyers these days, with the district now facing several lawsuits. He would rather be addressing urgent school matters, he said, the most serious of which is the state of student mental health.  He attributed student struggles partly to reacclimation after the disruptions of Covid-19, but also to the “vitriolic” political atmosphere surrounding schools these days. “I’m seeing that play out among the adults far more than among the students,” he said. But he said it naturally affected the students, too. In early November, elections took place for the Central Bucks school board. This year’s races were fueled by big-money PACs and featured attack websites and fake campaign fliers. The candidates running against a mask requirement won three of the five seats up for election, victories that supporters hailed as a long overdue return to normalcy.   But as they head into work each day, exhausted and overstretched, the school staff are left to consider what normalcy might now actually look like.             All throughout the pandemic, Lisa Rothenberger, an education assistant who works with students with special needs, has spent her days with children requiring constant face-to-face attention. Some of them could never wear masks, regardless of their parents’ views. It is unclear to her whether people are aware of the work she does — her union, which represents the assistants, custodians and other support staff, has not had a contract for months. But she does not have time, she said, to think much about what is happening at the school board meetings. And anyway, the feeling appears to be mutual. “I just don’t think they’re thinking about us,” she said.    A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Schools in Bind As Bitter Feuds Cripple Board   Advertisement  SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
While Politics Consume School Board Meetings, a Very Different Crisis Festers
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/central-bucks-school-board-politics-pennsylvania.html
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/30/why-american-politics-is-so-stuck-and-what-new-research-shows-about-how-to-fix-it-523517
Why American Politics Is So Stuck — and What New Research Shows About How to Fix It
2021-11-30
Daniela Goya-Tocchetto; Aaron Kay; Keith Payne st; Clip-Ruleevenodd; Fillfff Link Copied
<div><div>
<p>We call this tendency the partisan trade-off bias, and it applies to both parties. To a Democrat, the purpose of an environmental policy that reduces carbon emissions, for example, is to preserve the environment, and a corresponding loss of coal mining jobs is an unfortunate side effect. But a Republican, our research finds, might look at that same policy and see a plot to eradicate jobs in the fossil fuels industry. Meanwhile, a Democrat might presume a Republican push to lower corporate tax rates is more about helping the wealthy and hurting the poor than fueling economic growth.</p>
<p>Of course, skepticism about motives is sometimes warranted. But, oftentimes, it is misguided, and the deeper it runs, the harder it is to get anything through the policymaking process. Unless politicians find a way to lessen the effects of the partisan trade-off bias, we’re likely to keep seeing stalemates on important policy issues.</p>
<p>We documented the partisan trade-off bias across five studies using online samples of a total of 1,236 participants, a mix of Republicans and Democrats. As an example, in one of our studies participants were randomly assigned to view a set of policy trade-offs, some proposed by Republicans and some proposed by Democrats. The policies dealt with taxes, environmental regulation, gun control and voting rights. Participants then rated how intentional they perceived the negative side effects of each policy to be. The more participants identified with the Republican Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of the Democratic-proposed policies to be, and the more participants identified with the Democratic Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of Republican-proposed policies to be.</p>
<p>In a nutshell, our studies showed that the negative side effects associated with different policy trade-offs are not interpreted by opponents as side effects at all, but as intended goals of the policy.</p>
<p>To date, the political science literature has shown that political polarization leads partisans not only to dislike each other, but to see the other side increasingly as a threat to the country. Our identification of the partisan trade-off bias reveals a psychological tendency that might help to explain this perception of threat. After all, how can you get along with someone who you perceive as intentionally trying to do harm? </p>
<p>The good news is that by identifying the partisan trade-off bias, our research points a path forward: Policymakers who pay more attention to this bias might be better equipped to achieve compromise. This means that rather than focusing only on the main goal of a policy, they need to communicate clearly to the public what is intentional and what is a regrettable side-effect of that goal. </p>
<p>Fortunately, our studies also suggest this might be achievable. The partisan trade-off bias happens not because people don’t understand a given policy, but because they don’t trust the policymakers who are pushing that policy. We found that the level of trust a person feels toward a policymaker proposing a policy is a crucial driver of the partisan trade-off bias. And when we were able to increase people’s trust in the policymaker in our studies, we saw the partisan tradeoff bias decrease substantially. </p>
<p>Existing research suggests there are many ways politicians can earn others’ trust, but one of the most powerful is also the simplest: making sure people feel their voices are heard and listened to before a policy is announced, including both those inclined to like and dislike a policy. When we told participants in our studies that a policymaker spoke with stakeholders from all sides of the political spectrum before rolling out a proposal, the partisan tradeoff bias subsided. </p>
<p>Practically speaking, these findings suggest that announcing a big policy goal, and then doing press tours and campaigns to tout its benefits, likely does little to build trust. What happens <i>before</i> the policy is announced is crucial to building broad support for the policy. Politicians need to make it clear that they are speaking with and listening to those likely to be affected by a policy’s side effects. In the context of climate policy, a politician might visit coal miners in West Virginia or oil and gas workers in Texas while in the process of formulating a plan to reduce emissions, for example. The more widely the politician can advertise these efforts — across multiple types of media and across the ideological spectrum — the better.</p>
<p>Giving people a voice in the process does not mean they will change their minds about the value of the policy. But it does increase the chances that they will see the policy as a sincere attempt to solve problems rather than a form of hidden malice. That, in turn, can help lower the temperature and de-escalate the cycle of polarization. The same lesson holds for those of us who are not policymakers but ordinary citizens who want to have better conversations about politics. If you think you know what the other side’s real intentions are, think again. What you see as malice might be an unintended side effect. And if you want someone to give you the benefit of the doubt, put in the work of making them feel heard before you make yourself heard.</p>
</div>||||I|||| Skip to Main Content

 Politico Logo

 * Congress Minutes
 * Pro
 * E&E News
 * Search
 Search

 SECTIONS

 * Congress
 * Elections
 * White House
 * Magazine
 * Video
 * Podcasts
 * Congress Minutes

 SERIES

 * The Fifty
 * Women Rule

 POLITICO LIVE

 * About POLITICO Live
 * Upcoming Events
 * Previous Events

 NEWSLETTERS

 * Playbook
 * Playbook PM
 * POLITICO Nightly
 * West Wing Playbook
 * The Recast
 * Huddle
 * All Newsletters

 COLUMNISTS & CARTOONS

 * John Harris
 * Alex Burns
 * Jonathan Martin
 * Michael Schaffer
 * Jack Shafer
 * Rich Lowry
 * Matt Wuerker
 * Cartoon Carousel

 POLICY

 * Agriculture
 * Cannabis
 * Cybersecurity
 * Defense
 * Education
 * Employment & Immigration
 * Energy & Environment
 * Finance & Tax
 * Health Care
 * Space
 * Sustainability
 * Technology
 * Trade
 * Transportation

 EDITIONS

 * California
 * Canada
 * Florida
 * New Jersey
 * New York

 Europe

 * Brussels
 * United Kingdom

 Follow us

 * Twitter
 * Instagram
 * Facebook
 * My Account
 * 
 Magazine

 Political Science

 Why American Politics Is So Stuck — and What New Research Shows About How to Fix It

 The more people identify with a party, the more likely they are to ascribe bad motives to the other side's policy goals.

 Delegates hold up "Make America One Again" signs during the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

 By Daniela Goya-Tocchetto , Aaron Kay and Keith Payne

 11/30/2021 01:45 PM EST

 * 
 * 
 * 

 + Link Copied

 * 
 + 
 + 
 + 

 Daniela Goya-Tocchetto is a Ph.D. candidate in management and organizations at Duke University.

 Aaron Kay is a professor of management and of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University.

 Keith Payne is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

 Why does American politics feel so stuck these days, with bipartisan bills vanishingly rare and solutions seemingly taking a back seat to constant attacks?

 Our newly published research suggests an answer — and maybe a way to get un-stuck.

 Most policies are rife with trade-offs. They have an intended outcome and some regrettable side-effects. Our recent studies suggest that political polarization in the United States runs so deep that it leads partisans to see the other side’s intended outcome as a ruse and the side effects as the real intention. In other words, Democrats and Republicans not only disagree about policy matters; they believe the other party’s agenda is intentionally designed to do harm.

 We call this tendency the partisan trade-off bias, and it applies to both parties. To a Democrat, the purpose of an environmental policy that reduces carbon emissions, for example, is to preserve the environment, and a corresponding loss of coal mining jobs is an unfortunate side effect. But a Republican, our research finds, might look at that same policy and see a plot to eradicate jobs in the fossil fuels industry. Meanwhile, a Democrat might presume a Republican push to lower corporate tax rates is more about helping the wealthy and hurting the poor than fueling economic growth.

 Of course, skepticism about motives is sometimes warranted. But, oftentimes, it is misguided, and the deeper it runs, the harder it is to get anything through the policymaking process. Unless politicians find a way to lessen the effects of the partisan trade-off bias, we’re likely to keep seeing stalemates on important policy issues.

 We documented the partisan trade-off bias across five studies using online samples of a total of 1,236 participants, a mix of Republicans and Democrats. As an example, in one of our studies participants were randomly assigned to view a set of policy trade-offs, some proposed by Republicans and some proposed by Democrats. The policies dealt with taxes, environmental regulation, gun control and voting rights. Participants then rated how intentional they perceived the negative side effects of each policy to be. The more participants identified with the Republican Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of the Democratic-proposed policies to be, and the more participants identified with the Democratic Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of Republican-proposed policies to be.

 In a nutshell, our studies showed that the negative side effects associated with different policy trade-offs are not interpreted by opponents as side effects at all, but as intended goals of the policy.

 To date, the political science literature has shown that political polarization leads partisans not only to dislike each other, but to see the other side increasingly as a threat to the country. Our identification of the partisan trade-off bias reveals a psychological tendency that might help to explain this perception of threat. After all, how can you get along with someone who you perceive as intentionally trying to do harm?

 The good news is that by identifying the partisan trade-off bias, our research points a path forward: Policymakers who pay more attention to this bias might be better equipped to achieve compromise. This means that rather than focusing only on the main goal of a policy, they need to communicate clearly to the public what is intentional and what is a regrettable side-effect of that goal.

 Fortunately, our studies also suggest this might be achievable. The partisan trade-off bias happens not because people don’t understand a given policy, but because they don’t trust the policymakers who are pushing that policy. We found that the level of trust a person feels toward a policymaker proposing a policy is a crucial driver of the partisan trade-off bias. And when we were able to increase people’s trust in the policymaker in our studies, we saw the partisan tradeoff bias decrease substantially.

 Existing research suggests there are many ways politicians can earn others’ trust, but one of the most powerful is also the simplest: making sure people feel their voices are heard and listened to before a policy is announced, including both those inclined to like and dislike a policy. When we told participants in our studies that a policymaker spoke with stakeholders from all sides of the political spectrum before rolling out a proposal, the partisan tradeoff bias subsided.

 Practically speaking, these findings suggest that announcing a big policy goal, and then doing press tours and campaigns to tout its benefits, likely does little to build trust. What happens before the policy is announced is crucial to building broad support for the policy. Politicians need to make it clear that they are speaking with and listening to those likely to be affected by a policy’s side effects. In the context of climate policy, a politician might visit coal miners in West Virginia or oil and gas workers in Texas while in the process of formulating a plan to reduce emissions, for example. The more widely the politician can advertise these efforts — across multiple types of media and across the ideological spectrum — the better.

 Giving people a voice in the process does not mean they will change their minds about the value of the policy. But it does increase the chances that they will see the policy as a sincere attempt to solve problems rather than a form of hidden malice. That, in turn, can help lower the temperature and de-escalate the cycle of polarization. The same lesson holds for those of us who are not policymakers but ordinary citizens who want to have better conversations about politics. If you think you know what the other side’s real intentions are, think again. What you see as malice might be an unintended side effect. And if you want someone to give you the benefit of the doubt, put in the work of making them feel heard before you make yourself heard.

 * Filed under:
 * Research,
 * Bipartisanship,
 * Political Science
 POLITICO
 * 
 * 
 * 

 + Link Copied

 * 
 + 
 + 
 + 
 * About Us
 * Advertising
 * Breaking News Alerts
 * Careers
 * Credit Card Payments
 * Digital Edition
 * FAQ
 * Feedback
 * Headlines
 * Photos
 * POWERJobs
 * Press
 * Print Subscriptions
 * Request A Correction
 * Write For Us
 * RSS
 * Site Map
 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Do not sell my info
 * Notice to California Residents

 © 2023 POLITICO LLC

We call this tendency the partisan trade-off bias, and it applies to both parties. To a Democrat, the purpose of an environmental policy that reduces carbon emissions, for example, is to preserve the environment, and a corresponding loss of coal mining jobs is an unfortunate side effect. But a Republican, our research finds, might look at that same policy and see a plot to eradicate jobs in the fossil fuels industry. Meanwhile, a Democrat might presume a Republican push to lower corporate tax rates is more about helping the wealthy and hurting the poor than fueling economic growth.
Of course, skepticism about motives is sometimes warranted. But, oftentimes, it is misguided, and the deeper it runs, the harder it is to get anything through the policymaking process. Unless politicians find a way to lessen the effects of the partisan trade-off bias, we’re likely to keep seeing stalemates on important policy issues.
We documented the partisan trade-off bias across five studies using online samples of a total of 1,236 participants, a mix of Republicans and Democrats. As an example, in one of our studies participants were randomly assigned to view a set of policy trade-offs, some proposed by Republicans and some proposed by Democrats. The policies dealt with taxes, environmental regulation, gun control and voting rights. Participants then rated how intentional they perceived the negative side effects of each policy to be. The more participants identified with the Republican Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of the Democratic-proposed policies to be, and the more participants identified with the Democratic Party, the more intentional they perceived the side effects of Republican-proposed policies to be.
In a nutshell, our studies showed that the negative side effects associated with different policy trade-offs are not interpreted by opponents as side effects at all, but as intended goals of the policy.
To date, the political science literature has shown that political polarization leads partisans not only to dislike each other, but to see the other side increasingly as a threat to the country. Our identification of the partisan trade-off bias reveals a psychological tendency that might help to explain this perception of threat. After all, how can you get along with someone who you perceive as intentionally trying to do harm? 
The good news is that by identifying the partisan trade-off bias, our research points a path forward: Policymakers who pay more attention to this bias might be better equipped to achieve compromise. This means that rather than focusing only on the main goal of a policy, they need to communicate clearly to the public what is intentional and what is a regrettable side-effect of that goal. 
Fortunately, our studies also suggest this might be achievable. The partisan trade-off bias happens not because people don’t understand a given policy, but because they don’t trust the policymakers who are pushing that policy. We found that the level of trust a person feels toward a policymaker proposing a policy is a crucial driver of the partisan trade-off bias. And when we were able to increase people’s trust in the policymaker in our studies, we saw the partisan tradeoff bias decrease substantially. 
Existing research suggests there are many ways politicians can earn others’ trust, but one of the most powerful is also the simplest: making sure people feel their voices are heard and listened to before a policy is announced, including both those inclined to like and dislike a policy. When we told participants in our studies that a policymaker spoke with stakeholders from all sides of the political spectrum before rolling out a proposal, the partisan tradeoff bias subsided. 
Practically speaking, these findings suggest that announcing a big policy goal, and then doing press tours and campaigns to tout its benefits, likely does little to build trust. What happens before the policy is announced is crucial to building broad support for the policy. Politicians need to make it clear that they are speaking with and listening to those likely to be affected by a policy’s side effects. In the context of climate policy, a politician might visit coal miners in West Virginia or oil and gas workers in Texas while in the process of formulating a plan to reduce emissions, for example. The more widely the politician can advertise these efforts — across multiple types of media and across the ideological spectrum — the better.
Giving people a voice in the process does not mean they will change their minds about the value of the policy. But it does increase the chances that they will see the policy as a sincere attempt to solve problems rather than a form of hidden malice. That, in turn, can help lower the temperature and de-escalate the cycle of polarization. The same lesson holds for those of us who are not policymakers but ordinary citizens who want to have better conversations about politics. If you think you know what the other side’s real intentions are, think again. What you see as malice might be an unintended side effect. And if you want someone to give you the benefit of the doubt, put in the work of making them feel heard before you make yourself heard.
Why American Politics Is So Stuck — and What New Research Shows About How to Fix It
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/30/why-american-politics-is-so-stuck-and-what-new-research-shows-about-how-to-fix-it-523517
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/donald-trump-house-republicans-toxicity/index.html
The GOP's toxic squabble demonstrates the challenges for a party still controlled by Trump | CNN Politics
2021-12-01
Maeve Reston
<div><div>
 <div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>GOP lawmaker fires back at Marjorie Taylor Greene</p>
 <p>
 03:01
 
 - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p>
 </div>
</div>
 <div>
 <p>Politics of the Day
 16 videos
 </p>
 <div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>GOP lawmaker fires back at Marjorie Taylor Greene</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 03:01
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'Is it acceptable?': Tapper asks Buttigieg about suspected Chinese spy balloon</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:31
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Tapper asks Rubio about claims of spy balloons during Trump administration</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:36
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Reporter says this is Democrats' fatal flaw</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:02
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Journalist finds something unusual in George Santos' campaign expenses</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 05:20
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Friend shares her last words with beloved NJ councilwoman</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 04:38
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>SE Cupp: GOP sniping about Chinese spy balloon seems so absurd</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:38
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>College Board releases framework of new AP course denounced by DeSantis</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:47
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'I'm asking the questions': Sciutto pushes back on GOP lawmaker over debt ceiling</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 03:53
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Michael Cohen makes prediction on Trump investigation</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:19
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Paul Pelosi attacker pushes conspiracy theories in call to local TV station</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:59
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'Disappointing': GOP governor reacts to Trump's campaign speech</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 03:05
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Santos delivers House floor speech on Holocaust. See CNN anchor's reaction</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:10
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>These history-making women are now in charge of $1.7 trillion in federal spending</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 04:47
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Trump says DeSantis would be 'disloyal' if he ran for president</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:01
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'Mistakes were made': Pence on classified documents found at his home</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:37
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 </div>
 
 </div>
 
 </div><div>
 <p><cite>
 
 CNN
  — 
 </cite>
</p>
 <p>
 Democrats could not look any more vulnerable in the 2022 midterm elections,<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-nancy-mace-lauren-boebert/index.html"> but Republicans are showing every day</a> just how easily the GOP could torpedo its political chances next year.
 </p>
 <p>
 Infighting between moderates and loyalists to former President Donald Trump erupted into the open on Tuesday, while Trump continued his attempts to obscure the truth about the January 6 attack on the Capitol through the courts. While President Joe Biden’s approval ratings have tumbled to new lows in recent months as Americans stress over the Covid-19 pandemic and a host of kitchen table issues, restive voters looking for different leadership may not take much heart as they <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/nancy-mace-marjorie-taylor-greene-republicans/index.html">watched the debacle</a> unfolding in the Republican Party and the leadership’s inability to handle it. 
 </p>
 <p>
 As Trump hovers on the sidelines egging on GOP antagonists who have adopted his chaos-sowing tactics and vile rhetoric, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried unsuccessfully Tuesday to turn down the temperature in a roiling feud between freshman Republican Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
 </p>
 <p>
 Greene had started off the sniping by calling Mace “trash” on Twitter for condemning the Islamophobic comments of her ally, Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert. Mace was one of the few Republicans to speak up after video emerged of Boebert delivering remarks at a November 20 event in Colorado, at which the firebrand Coloradoan told a story about a supposed elevator ride with Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is Muslim and wears a hijab. The punchline of the story ended with Boebert suggesting Omar is a terrorist.
 </p>
 <p>
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/lauren-boebert-ilhan-omar-video-comments/index.html">CNN’s KFile on Tuesday uncovered </a>a second video from a September dinner where Boebert called Omar “evil” and “blackhearted” and again suggested she was a terrorist. Boebert and Omar had a tense telephone conversation that did not go well on Monday. Boebert has refused to apologize for her inflammatory attacks on Omar and the GOP has not taken any disciplinary action against her. 
 </p>
 <p>
 The spat spilled out to other members when Greene took issue with Mace’s condemnation of Boebert’s anti-Muslim remarks. The South Carolinian told CNN on Sunday that Boebert’s statements were “disgusting.” Greene, always eager for a public spat to burnish her credentials among her donors, attacked Mace’s conservative credentials on Twitter and warned her to “back up off” Boebert.
 </p>
 <p>
 The back-and-forth between the two Republicans continued all day Tuesday with Greene taunting in one tweet that she’d “just had a great conversation with President Trump about @NancyMace.” The South Carolina Republican replied: “I like my freshman colleagues who don’t think 9/11 was a hoax…” – a reference to Greene’s past embrace of conspiracy theories – “This one on the other hand… totally (nuts).” Mace added that Greene’s conversation with Trump amounted to running to the principal’s office “because she can’t stand on her own two feet.”
 </p>
 
 <p>
 In its totality, the embarrassing inter-party schism – and the lack of immediate consequences for Boebert’s inflammatory comments – underscored that the gutter politics that Trump ushered into Washington have only gotten worse following his retreat from the White House. 
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Republican leaders like McCarthy, whose chances of becoming speaker of the House hinge on maintaining the support of Trump and his hard-right acolytes, have not shown that they have any effectual way of dealing with the increasingly angry and toxic culture within the House of Representatives that has led to frightening threats against members, including Omar. No matter how outrageous or reckless the comments of Trump acolytes like Boebert and Greene get, they always seem to find protection in their closeness to the former President, whose tight grip on the party never seems to abate.
 </p>
 <p>
 In the absence of consequences, the behavior only seems to grow more abhorrent – and that could cost Republicans at the ballot box next year as they try to win back moderate and suburban voters who were alienated by Trump. 
 </p>
 <p>
 At a news conference Tuesday evening, Omar called on Republican leaders to take action against Boebert stating that their “silence speaks for itself.” She played a voicemail she received hours after her call with Boebert on Monday in which a man told her there are plenty “who would love the opportunity to take you off the face of the earth.”
 </p>
 <p>
 “You are a f—ing Muslim piece of s—. You Jihadist. We know what you are. You’re a f—ing traitor, you will not live much longer, b—-,” the voicemail said. 
 </p>
 <p>
 Omar said condemning remarks that lead to that kind of rhetoric “should not be a partisan issue” and added that “when a sitting member of Congress calls a colleague, a member of ‘the Jihad Squad’” – as both Boebert and Greene have done – “and falsifies a story to suggest that I will blow up the Capitol, it is not just attack on me, but on millions of American Muslims across this country.” She noted that anti-Muslim rhetoric used by Trump during his 2016 campaign served as a pre-cursor to the more recent taunts from his supporters. 
 </p>
 <p>
 “To date, the Republican Party leadership has done nothing to hold their members accountable. It is time for the Republican Party to actually do something to confront anti Muslim hatred in its ranks,” Omar said. 
 </p>
 
 <p>
 <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/republican-infighting-kevin-mccarthy/index.html">On Tuesday night, CNN’s Manu Raju and Melanie Zanona reported</a> that McCarthy called both Greene and Mace into his office for separate meetings admonishing them to “Stop it.” That seemed to have little effect, given that Greene told CNN after the meeting that both she and Trump would support a primary challenge to Mace in 2022. 
 </p>
 <p>
 The South Carolinian made no apologies for her criticisms of Greene, suggesting that the Georgia congresswoman is stoking the feud to raise money: “She takes advantage of vulnerable Americans and vulnerable conservatives, and makes promises she cannot keep.”
 </p>
 <p>
 Mace also argued that it was important to challenge Greene’s lies.
 </p>
 <p>
 “It’s incumbent upon members like myself to step up,” she said, waiving off Greene’s threat to support a primary challenge against her. “I don’t fear retribution, I don’t fear the consequences.”
 </p>
 <p>
 Charlie Dent, the former Pennsylvania Republican congressman who is a CNN contributor, said Tuesday night that the debacle demonstrated just how coarse American politics has become and called on GOP leaders to rein it in. 
 </p>
 <p>
 “It’s really incumbent upon leaders in Congress to try to set a better tone and tenor,” Dent told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “There used to be a time when members would debate policies and ideas and not lob insults at each other, or smears as in the case of Lauren Boebert on Representative Omar.” 
 </p>
 <p>
 “I think it’s now important for Kevin McCarthy to stand up and deal with these issues internally,” Dent said. “Some members have to be taught how to engage in a debate with their colleagues, and when they’re at home, not to go out and say these kinds of reckless, insulting, inflammatory comments.” 
 </p>
 
 <p>
 While Trump’s political sway over the Republican Party remains largely unchallenged, his attempts to control the flow of information to the House committee investigating the January 6 attacks faced two new key setbacks on Tuesday.
 </p>
 <p>
 While his tactics may still be setting the tone for the noxious political debate in Washington, the former President is not proving as effective in the courts as he tries to control what the country learns about what he knew in the leadup to the January 6 attack by his supporters on the Capitol. 
 </p>
 <p>
 For months Trump has tried to thwart the work of the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection both by trying to block the release of documents they have requested from his administration through the courts – claiming they should be protected by executive privilege – and by steering former staffers to use that same line of defense to avoid questioning as by committee members. 
 </p>
 <p>
 But the House committee shifted the power narrative in this battle of wills with the former President when they made it clear that there would be serious legal consequences for stonewalling them.
 </p>
 <p>
 Earlier this year, they set the process in motion for the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/politics/steve-bannon-indicted/index.html">indictment</a> of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who was charged with criminal contempt of Congress by a federal grand jury last month. On Monday, committee members made it plain that may not be a one-time circumstance as they indicated that they <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/politics/jeffrey-clark-criminal-contempt-of-congress-referral/index.html">are poised to vote </a>on a criminal contempt of Congress <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/jeffrey-clark-house-january-6/index.html">referral for Jeffrey Clark,</a> a former top Department of Justice official who pushed unfounded claims of voter fraud after the November election while he was in close touch with Trump.
 </p>
 <p>
 Like Bannon, Clark had also refused to cooperate with the committee under the pretense that he could not testify until a court declares his communications with the former President are not shielded by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. 
 </p>
 <p>
 The threat of real legal jeopardy and possible jail time has clearly rattled potential witnesses. Facing the possibility of criminal contempt charges, CNN reported Tuesday that Trump’s former <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/mark-meadows-january-6-trump/index.html">chief of staff Mark Meadows</a> has now reached a deal for <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/mark-meadows-january-6-committee/index.html">initial cooperation</a> with the committee. 
 </p>
 <p>
 Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs select committee, told CNN that the panel has received “probably about 6,000 emails” from Meadows via his lawyer.
 </p>
 <p>
 Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/trump-january-6-docs-hearing-takeaways/index.html">faced a skeptical three-judge panel</a> on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday as they argued that the court should block the release of the presidential documents under his executive privilege claims even though the Biden administration believes they should be disclosed. 
 </p>
 <p>
 The judges showed little interest in doing the document-by-document review that Trump has proposed and questioned why the former President’s claim of executive privilege should carry more weight than Biden’s administration’s viewpoint that they should be released, in the interests of transparency about a day in which Trump supporters attempted a coup that almost upended America’s democracy.
 </p>
 </div>||||I|||| The Biden Presidency
 Facts First
 2022 Midterms
 More
 The Biden Presidency Facts First 2022 Midterms
 Audio Live TV
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Search
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Live TV Audio
 Edition
 US
 International
 Arabic
 Español
 Edition
 * US
 * International
 * Arabic
 * Español
 The Biden Presidency
 Facts First
 2022 Midterms
 Follow CNN Politics
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * US
 + Crime + Justice
 + Energy + Environment
 + Extreme Weather
 + Space + Science
 * World
 + Africa
 + Americas
 + Asia
 + Australia
 + China
 + Europe
 + India
 + Middle East
 + United Kingdom
 * Politics
 + SCOTUS
 + Congress
 + Facts First
 + 2020 Election
 * Business
 + Tech
 + Media
 + Success
 + Perspectives
 + Video
 * Markets
 + Pre-markets
 + After-Hours
 + Market Movers
 + Fear & Greed
 + World Markets
 + Investing
 + Markets Now
 + Before the Bell
 + Nightcap
 * Opinion
 + Political Op-Eds
 + Social Commentary
 * Health
 + Life, But Better
 + Fitness
 + Food
 + Sleep
 + Mindfulness
 + Relationships
 * Entertainment
 + Movies
 + Television
 + Celebrity
 * Tech
 + Innovate
 + Gadget
 + Foreseeable Future
 + Mission: Ahead
 + Upstarts
 + Work Transformed
 + Innovative Cities
 * Style
 + Arts
 + Design
 + Fashion
 + Architecture
 + Luxury
 + Beauty
 + Video
 * Travel
 + Destinations
 + Food & Drink
 + Stay
 + Videos
 * Sports
 + Pro Football
 + College Football
 + Basketball
 + Baseball
 + Soccer
 + Olympics
 + Hockey
 * Videos
 + Live TV
 + Digital Studios
 + CNN Films
 + HLN
 + TV Schedule
 + TV Shows A-Z
 + CNNVR
 * CNN Underscored
 + Electronics
 + Fashion
 + Beauty
 + Health & Fitness
 + Home
 + Reviews
 + Deals
 + Money
 + Gifts
 + Travel
 + Outdoors
 + Pets
 + CNN Store
 * Coupons
 * More
 + Photos
 + Longform
 + Investigations
 + CNN Profiles
 + CNN Leadership
 + CNN Newsletters
 + Work for CNN

 The GOP’s toxic squabble demonstrates the challenges for a party still controlled by Trump

 Analysis by Maeve Reston , CNN
 Updated 10:05 AM EST, Wed December 1, 2021
 Link Copied!
 GOP lawmaker fires back at Marjorie Taylor Greene
 03:01 - Source: CNN
 Politics of the Day 16 videos
 GOP lawmaker fires back at Marjorie Taylor Greene
 03:01
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'Is it acceptable?': Tapper asks Buttigieg about suspected Chinese spy balloon
 02:31
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Tapper asks Rubio about claims of spy balloons during Trump administration
 02:36
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Reporter says this is Democrats' fatal flaw
 01:02
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Journalist finds something unusual in George Santos' campaign expenses
 05:20
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Friend shares her last words with beloved NJ councilwoman
 04:38
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 SE Cupp: GOP sniping about Chinese spy balloon seems so absurd
 01:38
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 College Board releases framework of new AP course denounced by DeSantis
 02:47
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'I'm asking the questions': Sciutto pushes back on GOP lawmaker over debt ceiling
 03:53
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Michael Cohen makes prediction on Trump investigation
 01:19
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Paul Pelosi attacker pushes conspiracy theories in call to local TV station
 02:59
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'Disappointing': GOP governor reacts to Trump's campaign speech
 03:05
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Santos delivers House floor speech on Holocaust. See CNN anchor's reaction
 02:10
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 These history-making women are now in charge of $1.7 trillion in federal spending
 04:47
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Trump says DeSantis would be 'disloyal' if he ran for president
 01:01
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'Mistakes were made': Pence on classified documents found at his home
 02:37
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 See More Videos
 CNN —

 Democrats could not look any more vulnerable in the 2022 midterm elections, but Republicans are showing every day just how easily the GOP could torpedo its political chances next year.

 Infighting between moderates and loyalists to former President Donald Trump erupted into the open on Tuesday, while Trump continued his attempts to obscure the truth about the January 6 attack on the Capitol through the courts. While President Joe Biden’s approval ratings have tumbled to new lows in recent months as Americans stress over the Covid-19 pandemic and a host of kitchen table issues, restive voters looking for different leadership may not take much heart as they watched the debacle unfolding in the Republican Party and the leadership’s inability to handle it.

 As Trump hovers on the sidelines egging on GOP antagonists who have adopted his chaos-sowing tactics and vile rhetoric, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried unsuccessfully Tuesday to turn down the temperature in a roiling feud between freshman Republican Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

 Greene had started off the sniping by calling Mace “trash” on Twitter for condemning the Islamophobic comments of her ally, Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert. Mace was one of the few Republicans to speak up after video emerged of Boebert delivering remarks at a November 20 event in Colorado, at which the firebrand Coloradoan told a story about a supposed elevator ride with Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is Muslim and wears a hijab. The punchline of the story ended with Boebert suggesting Omar is a terrorist.

 CNN’s KFile on Tuesday uncovered a second video from a September dinner where Boebert called Omar “evil” and “blackhearted” and again suggested she was a terrorist. Boebert and Omar had a tense telephone conversation that did not go well on Monday. Boebert has refused to apologize for her inflammatory attacks on Omar and the GOP has not taken any disciplinary action against her.

 The spat spilled out to other members when Greene took issue with Mace’s condemnation of Boebert’s anti-Muslim remarks. The South Carolinian told CNN on Sunday that Boebert’s statements were “disgusting.” Greene, always eager for a public spat to burnish her credentials among her donors, attacked Mace’s conservative credentials on Twitter and warned her to “back up off” Boebert.

 The back-and-forth between the two Republicans continued all day Tuesday with Greene taunting in one tweet that she’d “just had a great conversation with President Trump about @NancyMace.” The South Carolina Republican replied: “I like my freshman colleagues who don’t think 9/11 was a hoax…” – a reference to Greene’s past embrace of conspiracy theories – “This one on the other hand… totally (nuts).” Mace added that Greene’s conversation with Trump amounted to running to the principal’s office “because she can’t stand on her own two feet.”

 GOP’s gutter politics

 In its totality, the embarrassing inter-party schism – and the lack of immediate consequences for Boebert’s inflammatory comments – underscored that the gutter politics that Trump ushered into Washington have only gotten worse following his retreat from the White House.

 Joe Raedle/Getty Images

 Lauren Boebert isn't sorry

 Republican leaders like McCarthy, whose chances of becoming speaker of the House hinge on maintaining the support of Trump and his hard-right acolytes, have not shown that they have any effectual way of dealing with the increasingly angry and toxic culture within the House of Representatives that has led to frightening threats against members, including Omar. No matter how outrageous or reckless the comments of Trump acolytes like Boebert and Greene get, they always seem to find protection in their closeness to the former President, whose tight grip on the party never seems to abate.

 In the absence of consequences, the behavior only seems to grow more abhorrent – and that could cost Republicans at the ballot box next year as they try to win back moderate and suburban voters who were alienated by Trump.

 At a news conference Tuesday evening, Omar called on Republican leaders to take action against Boebert stating that their “silence speaks for itself.” She played a voicemail she received hours after her call with Boebert on Monday in which a man told her there are plenty “who would love the opportunity to take you off the face of the earth.”

 “You are a f—ing Muslim piece of s—. You Jihadist. We know what you are. You’re a f—ing traitor, you will not live much longer, b—-,” the voicemail said.

 Omar said condemning remarks that lead to that kind of rhetoric “should not be a partisan issue” and added that “when a sitting member of Congress calls a colleague, a member of ‘the Jihad Squad’” – as both Boebert and Greene have done – “and falsifies a story to suggest that I will blow up the Capitol, it is not just attack on me, but on millions of American Muslims across this country.” She noted that anti-Muslim rhetoric used by Trump during his 2016 campaign served as a pre-cursor to the more recent taunts from his supporters.

 “To date, the Republican Party leadership has done nothing to hold their members accountable. It is time for the Republican Party to actually do something to confront anti Muslim hatred in its ranks,” Omar said.

 McCarthy’s caucus ignores his admonishments

 On Tuesday night, CNN’s Manu Raju and Melanie Zanona reported that McCarthy called both Greene and Mace into his office for separate meetings admonishing them to “Stop it.” That seemed to have little effect, given that Greene told CNN after the meeting that both she and Trump would support a primary challenge to Mace in 2022.

 The South Carolinian made no apologies for her criticisms of Greene, suggesting that the Georgia congresswoman is stoking the feud to raise money: “She takes advantage of vulnerable Americans and vulnerable conservatives, and makes promises she cannot keep.”

 Mace also argued that it was important to challenge Greene’s lies.

 “It’s incumbent upon members like myself to step up,” she said, waiving off Greene’s threat to support a primary challenge against her. “I don’t fear retribution, I don’t fear the consequences.”

 Charlie Dent, the former Pennsylvania Republican congressman who is a CNN contributor, said Tuesday night that the debacle demonstrated just how coarse American politics has become and called on GOP leaders to rein it in.

 “It’s really incumbent upon leaders in Congress to try to set a better tone and tenor,” Dent told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “There used to be a time when members would debate policies and ideas and not lob insults at each other, or smears as in the case of Lauren Boebert on Representative Omar.”

 “I think it’s now important for Kevin McCarthy to stand up and deal with these issues internally,” Dent said. “Some members have to be taught how to engage in a debate with their colleagues, and when they’re at home, not to go out and say these kinds of reckless, insulting, inflammatory comments.”

 Trump continues his battle to stonewall the January 6 committee

 While Trump’s political sway over the Republican Party remains largely unchallenged, his attempts to control the flow of information to the House committee investigating the January 6 attacks faced two new key setbacks on Tuesday.

 While his tactics may still be setting the tone for the noxious political debate in Washington, the former President is not proving as effective in the courts as he tries to control what the country learns about what he knew in the leadup to the January 6 attack by his supporters on the Capitol.

 For months Trump has tried to thwart the work of the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection both by trying to block the release of documents they have requested from his administration through the courts – claiming they should be protected by executive privilege – and by steering former staffers to use that same line of defense to avoid questioning as by committee members.

 But the House committee shifted the power narrative in this battle of wills with the former President when they made it clear that there would be serious legal consequences for stonewalling them.

 Earlier this year, they set the process in motion for the indictment of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who was charged with criminal contempt of Congress by a federal grand jury last month. On Monday, committee members made it plain that may not be a one-time circumstance as they indicated that they are poised to vote on a criminal contempt of Congress referral for Jeffrey Clark, a former top Department of Justice official who pushed unfounded claims of voter fraud after the November election while he was in close touch with Trump.

 Like Bannon, Clark had also refused to cooperate with the committee under the pretense that he could not testify until a court declares his communications with the former President are not shielded by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.

 The threat of real legal jeopardy and possible jail time has clearly rattled potential witnesses. Facing the possibility of criminal contempt charges, CNN reported Tuesday that Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows has now reached a deal for initial cooperation with the committee.

 Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs select committee, told CNN that the panel has received “probably about 6,000 emails” from Meadows via his lawyer.

 Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers faced a skeptical three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday as they argued that the court should block the release of the presidential documents under his executive privilege claims even though the Biden administration believes they should be disclosed.

 The judges showed little interest in doing the document-by-document review that Trump has proposed and questioned why the former President’s claim of executive privilege should carry more weight than Biden’s administration’s viewpoint that they should be released, in the interests of transparency about a day in which Trump supporters attempted a coup that almost upended America’s democracy.

 Related
 Search
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Live TV Audio
 * US
 + Crime + Justice
 + Energy + Environment
 + Extreme Weather
 + Space + Science
 * World
 + Africa
 + Americas
 + Asia
 + Australia
 + China
 + Europe
 + India
 + Middle East
 + United Kingdom
 * Politics
 + The Biden Presidency
 + Facts First
 + US Elections
 * Business
 + Tech
 + Media
 + Success
 + Perspectives
 + Videos
 * Markets
 + Pre-markets
 + After-Hours
 + Market Movers
 + Fear & Greed
 + World Markets
 + Investing
 + Markets Now
 + Before the Bell
 + Nightcap
 * Opinion
 + Political Op-Eds
 + Social Commentary
 * Health
 + Life, But Better
 + Fitness
 + Food
 + Sleep
 + Mindfulness
 + Relationships
 * Entertainment
 + Movies
 + Television
 + Celebrity
 * Tech
 + Innovate
 + Gadget
 + Foreseeable Future
 + Mission: Ahead
 + Upstarts
 + Work Transformed
 + Innovative Cities
 * Style
 + Arts
 + Design
 + Fashion
 + Architecture
 + Luxury
 + Beauty
 + Video
 * Travel
 + Destinations
 + Food & Drink
 + Stay
 + News
 + Videos
 * Sports
 + Pro Football
 + College Football
 + Basketball
 + Baseball
 + Soccer
 + Olympics
 + Hockey
 * Videos
 + Live TV
 + Digital Studios
 + CNN Films
 + HLN
 + TV Schedule
 + TV Shows A-Z
 + CNNVR
 * Audio
 * CNN Underscored
 + Electronics
 + Fashion
 + Beauty
 + Health & Fitness
 + Home
 + Reviews
 + Deals
 + Money
 + Gifts
 + Travel
 + Outdoors
 + Pets
 + CNN Store
 * Coupons
 * Weather
 + Climate
 + Storm Tracker
 + Wildfire Tracker
 + Video
 * More
 + Photos
 + Longform
 + Investigations
 + CNN Profiles
 + CNN Leadership
 + CNN Newsletters
 + Work for CNN
 Audio Live TV
 Follow CNN Politics
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Terms of Use Privacy Policy Ad Choices Accessibility & CC About Newsletters Transcripts

 © 2023 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
 CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.

GOP lawmaker fires back at Marjorie Taylor Greene
 
 03:01
 
 - Source:
 CNN
 
 
 
 
 Politics of the Day
 16 videos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GOP lawmaker fires back at Marjorie Taylor Greene
 
 
 
 03:01
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Is it acceptable?': Tapper asks Buttigieg about suspected Chinese spy balloon
 
 
 
 02:31
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tapper asks Rubio about claims of spy balloons during Trump administration
 
 
 
 02:36
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Reporter says this is Democrats' fatal flaw
 
 
 
 01:02
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Journalist finds something unusual in George Santos' campaign expenses
 
 
 
 05:20
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Friend shares her last words with beloved NJ councilwoman
 
 
 
 04:38
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SE Cupp: GOP sniping about Chinese spy balloon seems so absurd
 
 
 
 01:38
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 College Board releases framework of new AP course denounced by DeSantis
 
 
 
 02:47
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'I'm asking the questions': Sciutto pushes back on GOP lawmaker over debt ceiling
 
 
 
 03:53
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Michael Cohen makes prediction on Trump investigation
 
 
 
 01:19
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paul Pelosi attacker pushes conspiracy theories in call to local TV station
 
 
 
 02:59
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Disappointing': GOP governor reacts to Trump's campaign speech
 
 
 
 03:05
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Santos delivers House floor speech on Holocaust. See CNN anchor's reaction
 
 
 
 02:10
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 These history-making women are now in charge of $1.7 trillion in federal spending
 
 
 
 04:47
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Trump says DeSantis would be 'disloyal' if he ran for president
 
 
 
 01:01
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Mistakes were made': Pence on classified documents found at his home
 
 
 
 02:37
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 CNN
  — 
 
 
 Democrats could not look any more vulnerable in the 2022 midterm elections, but Republicans are showing every day just how easily the GOP could torpedo its political chances next year.
 
 
 Infighting between moderates and loyalists to former President Donald Trump erupted into the open on Tuesday, while Trump continued his attempts to obscure the truth about the January 6 attack on the Capitol through the courts. While President Joe Biden’s approval ratings have tumbled to new lows in recent months as Americans stress over the Covid-19 pandemic and a host of kitchen table issues, restive voters looking for different leadership may not take much heart as they watched the debacle unfolding in the Republican Party and the leadership’s inability to handle it. 
 
 
 As Trump hovers on the sidelines egging on GOP antagonists who have adopted his chaos-sowing tactics and vile rhetoric, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried unsuccessfully Tuesday to turn down the temperature in a roiling feud between freshman Republican Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
 
 
 Greene had started off the sniping by calling Mace “trash” on Twitter for condemning the Islamophobic comments of her ally, Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert. Mace was one of the few Republicans to speak up after video emerged of Boebert delivering remarks at a November 20 event in Colorado, at which the firebrand Coloradoan told a story about a supposed elevator ride with Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is Muslim and wears a hijab. The punchline of the story ended with Boebert suggesting Omar is a terrorist.
 
 
 CNN’s KFile on Tuesday uncovered a second video from a September dinner where Boebert called Omar “evil” and “blackhearted” and again suggested she was a terrorist. Boebert and Omar had a tense telephone conversation that did not go well on Monday. Boebert has refused to apologize for her inflammatory attacks on Omar and the GOP has not taken any disciplinary action against her. 
 
 
 The spat spilled out to other members when Greene took issue with Mace’s condemnation of Boebert’s anti-Muslim remarks. The South Carolinian told CNN on Sunday that Boebert’s statements were “disgusting.” Greene, always eager for a public spat to burnish her credentials among her donors, attacked Mace’s conservative credentials on Twitter and warned her to “back up off” Boebert.
 
 
 The back-and-forth between the two Republicans continued all day Tuesday with Greene taunting in one tweet that she’d “just had a great conversation with President Trump about @NancyMace.” The South Carolina Republican replied: “I like my freshman colleagues who don’t think 9/11 was a hoax…” – a reference to Greene’s past embrace of conspiracy theories – “This one on the other hand… totally (nuts).” Mace added that Greene’s conversation with Trump amounted to running to the principal’s office “because she can’t stand on her own two feet.”
 
 
 
 In its totality, the embarrassing inter-party schism – and the lack of immediate consequences for Boebert’s inflammatory comments – underscored that the gutter politics that Trump ushered into Washington have only gotten worse following his retreat from the White House. 
 
 
 
 Republican leaders like McCarthy, whose chances of becoming speaker of the House hinge on maintaining the support of Trump and his hard-right acolytes, have not shown that they have any effectual way of dealing with the increasingly angry and toxic culture within the House of Representatives that has led to frightening threats against members, including Omar. No matter how outrageous or reckless the comments of Trump acolytes like Boebert and Greene get, they always seem to find protection in their closeness to the former President, whose tight grip on the party never seems to abate.
 
 
 In the absence of consequences, the behavior only seems to grow more abhorrent – and that could cost Republicans at the ballot box next year as they try to win back moderate and suburban voters who were alienated by Trump. 
 
 
 At a news conference Tuesday evening, Omar called on Republican leaders to take action against Boebert stating that their “silence speaks for itself.” She played a voicemail she received hours after her call with Boebert on Monday in which a man told her there are plenty “who would love the opportunity to take you off the face of the earth.”
 
 
 “You are a f—ing Muslim piece of s—. You Jihadist. We know what you are. You’re a f—ing traitor, you will not live much longer, b—-,” the voicemail said. 
 
 
 Omar said condemning remarks that lead to that kind of rhetoric “should not be a partisan issue” and added that “when a sitting member of Congress calls a colleague, a member of ‘the Jihad Squad’” – as both Boebert and Greene have done – “and falsifies a story to suggest that I will blow up the Capitol, it is not just attack on me, but on millions of American Muslims across this country.” She noted that anti-Muslim rhetoric used by Trump during his 2016 campaign served as a pre-cursor to the more recent taunts from his supporters. 
 
 
 “To date, the Republican Party leadership has done nothing to hold their members accountable. It is time for the Republican Party to actually do something to confront anti Muslim hatred in its ranks,” Omar said. 
 
 
 
 On Tuesday night, CNN’s Manu Raju and Melanie Zanona reported that McCarthy called both Greene and Mace into his office for separate meetings admonishing them to “Stop it.” That seemed to have little effect, given that Greene told CNN after the meeting that both she and Trump would support a primary challenge to Mace in 2022. 
 
 
 The South Carolinian made no apologies for her criticisms of Greene, suggesting that the Georgia congresswoman is stoking the feud to raise money: “She takes advantage of vulnerable Americans and vulnerable conservatives, and makes promises she cannot keep.”
 
 
 Mace also argued that it was important to challenge Greene’s lies.
 
 
 “It’s incumbent upon members like myself to step up,” she said, waiving off Greene’s threat to support a primary challenge against her. “I don’t fear retribution, I don’t fear the consequences.”
 
 
 Charlie Dent, the former Pennsylvania Republican congressman who is a CNN contributor, said Tuesday night that the debacle demonstrated just how coarse American politics has become and called on GOP leaders to rein it in. 
 
 
 “It’s really incumbent upon leaders in Congress to try to set a better tone and tenor,” Dent told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “There used to be a time when members would debate policies and ideas and not lob insults at each other, or smears as in the case of Lauren Boebert on Representative Omar.” 
 
 
 “I think it’s now important for Kevin McCarthy to stand up and deal with these issues internally,” Dent said. “Some members have to be taught how to engage in a debate with their colleagues, and when they’re at home, not to go out and say these kinds of reckless, insulting, inflammatory comments.” 
 
 
 
 While Trump’s political sway over the Republican Party remains largely unchallenged, his attempts to control the flow of information to the House committee investigating the January 6 attacks faced two new key setbacks on Tuesday.
 
 
 While his tactics may still be setting the tone for the noxious political debate in Washington, the former President is not proving as effective in the courts as he tries to control what the country learns about what he knew in the leadup to the January 6 attack by his supporters on the Capitol. 
 
 
 For months Trump has tried to thwart the work of the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection both by trying to block the release of documents they have requested from his administration through the courts – claiming they should be protected by executive privilege – and by steering former staffers to use that same line of defense to avoid questioning as by committee members. 
 
 
 But the House committee shifted the power narrative in this battle of wills with the former President when they made it clear that there would be serious legal consequences for stonewalling them.
 
 
 Earlier this year, they set the process in motion for the indictment of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who was charged with criminal contempt of Congress by a federal grand jury last month. On Monday, committee members made it plain that may not be a one-time circumstance as they indicated that they are poised to vote on a criminal contempt of Congress referral for Jeffrey Clark, a former top Department of Justice official who pushed unfounded claims of voter fraud after the November election while he was in close touch with Trump.
 
 
 Like Bannon, Clark had also refused to cooperate with the committee under the pretense that he could not testify until a court declares his communications with the former President are not shielded by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. 
 
 
 The threat of real legal jeopardy and possible jail time has clearly rattled potential witnesses. Facing the possibility of criminal contempt charges, CNN reported Tuesday that Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows has now reached a deal for initial cooperation with the committee. 
 
 
 Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs select committee, told CNN that the panel has received “probably about 6,000 emails” from Meadows via his lawyer.
 
 
 Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers faced a skeptical three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday as they argued that the court should block the release of the presidential documents under his executive privilege claims even though the Biden administration believes they should be disclosed. 
 
 
 The judges showed little interest in doing the document-by-document review that Trump has proposed and questioned why the former President’s claim of executive privilege should carry more weight than Biden’s administration’s viewpoint that they should be released, in the interests of transparency about a day in which Trump supporters attempted a coup that almost upended America’s democracy.
The GOP's toxic squabble demonstrates the challenges for a party still controlled by Trump | CNN Politics
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/donald-trump-house-republicans-toxicity/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/30/1060185002/tvs-dr-oz-enters-pennsylvanias-crucial-senate-race-on-the-gop-side
TV's Dr. Oz enters Pennsylvania's crucial Senate race on the GOP side
2021-11-30
Alana Wise
<div><div>
 <div>
 <div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
</div>
<div>
 <div>
 <p>
 Dr. Mehmet Oz, seen here in a December 2019 file photo, joins the Republican field of possible candidates aiming to capture Pennsylvania's open U.S. Senate seat in next year's election.
 <b>
 
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
 
 </b>
 <b><b>hide caption</b></b>
 </p>
 <p><b><b>toggle caption</b></b>
 </p></div>
 <p>
 
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
 
 
</p></div>
<div>
 
 
 
 
 
 </div>
<div>
 <p>Dr. Mehmet Oz, seen here in a December 2019 file photo, joins the Republican field of possible candidates aiming to capture Pennsylvania's open U.S. Senate seat in next year's election.</p>
 <p>
 
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
 
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
 <p>Dr. Mehmet Oz, a celebrity heart surgeon who has also promoted questionable health advice to national television audiences, has entered the closely watched Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race.</p> <p>Oz, a longtime resident of New Jersey, is running as a Republican in a bid to represent the Keystone State. The open contest will likely play a large role in which party controls the Senate in the next political term. </p> <p>"We are angry at our government and at each other," Oz said in a statement Tuesday in the right-leaning <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/why-im-running-to-be-a-senator-from-pennsylvania">Washington Examiner</a> announcing his candidacy.</p> <p>"We have not managed our crises as effectively as past generations," he wrote. "During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions. That's why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to help fix the problems and to help us heal."</p> <p>The Pennsylvania race will likely be among the most consequential in the coming election, and Oz brings with him a medical background at a time when the American public is grappling simultaneously with a deadly pandemic and a devastating misinformation crisis that threatens public health and the nation's democracy. </p> 
 <p>In announcing his bid for the Senate, Oz boasted of his background as both the child of immigrants and as a medical professional. </p> <p>"Over 750,000 in the United States have died from the virus, a devastating toll for families and communities," he wrote in his statement. "Many of those deaths were preventable. COVID-19 became an excuse for the government and elite thinkers who controlled the means of communication to suspend debate. Dissenting opinions from leading scholars were ridiculed and canceled so their ideas could not be disseminated.</p> <p>"Instead, the government mandated policies that caused unnecessary suffering. The public was patronized and misled instead of empowered."</p> <p>Oz has <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dr-oz-solicits-fox-news-viewers-join-home-hydroxychloroquine-clinical-trial">promoted</a> hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment. The Food and Drug Administration has <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or">cautioned</a> against the personal use of the drug for COVID.</p> <p>Oz has <a href="https://www.npr.org/2015/04/17/400424025/physicians-urge-columbia-to-fire-dr-oz-for-promoting-quack-treatments">previously</a> been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4269523/">criticized</a> for other health recommendations, and has <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-oz-defends-weight-loss-advice-at-senate-hearing-on-diet-scams/">testified</a> at a Senate hearing on deceptive advertising for diet supplements.</p> <p>His entrance into the GOP Senate contest follows Sean Parnell's <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/1058140148/trump-backed-pa-senate-candidate-suspends-his-campaign-after-losing-custody-batt">suspension last week of his candidacy</a>. Parnell had the endorsement of former President Donald Trump.</p>
</div>||||I|||| Accessibility links
 * Skip to main content
 * Keyboard shortcuts for audio player
 * Open Navigation Menu
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * NPR Shop
 * 
 > Close Navigation Menu
 * Home
 * News Expand/collapse submenu for News
 + National
 + World
 + Politics
 + Business
 + Health
 + Science
 + Climate
 + Race
 * Culture Expand/collapse submenu for Culture
 + Books
 + Movies
 + Television
 + Pop Culture
 + Food
 + Art & Design
 + Performing Arts
 + Life Kit
 * Music Expand/collapse submenu for Music
 + Tiny Desk
 + #NowPlaying
 + All Songs Considered
 + Music Features
 + Live Sessions
 * Podcasts & Shows Expand/collapse submenu for Podcasts & Shows
 Daily
 + Morning Edition
 + Weekend Edition Saturday
 + Weekend Edition Sunday
 + All Things Considered
 + Fresh Air
 + Up First
 Featured
 + Embedded
 + Planet Money
 + Life Kit
 + NPR's Book of the Day
 + More Podcasts & Shows
 * Search
 * 
 * NPR Shop
 * 
 * Tiny Desk
 * #NowPlaying
 * All Songs Considered
 * Music Features
 * Live Sessions
 * About NPR
 * Diversity
 * Organization
 * Support
 * Careers
 * Connect
 * Press
 * Ethics
 Controversial Dr. Mehmet Oz joins Pennsylvania Senate race The celebrity surgeon, who has promoted questionable health advice to national television audiences, has thrown his hat into the ring to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate.
 NPR
 * subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast
 * 
 + NPR One
 + Apple Podcasts
 + Spotify
 + Google Podcasts
 + Amazon Music
 + RSS link

 Politics

 TV's Dr. Oz enters Pennsylvania's crucial Senate race on the GOP side

 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * Flipboard
 * Email
 November 30, 2021 4:44 PM ET

 Alana Wise

 Twitter
 Enlarge this image

 Dr. Mehmet Oz, seen here in a December 2019 file photo, joins the Republican field of possible candidates aiming to capture Pennsylvania's open U.S. Senate seat in next year's election. Evan Agostini/Invision/AP hide caption

 toggle caption
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

 Dr. Mehmet Oz, seen here in a December 2019 file photo, joins the Republican field of possible candidates aiming to capture Pennsylvania's open U.S. Senate seat in next year's election.

 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

 Dr. Mehmet Oz, a celebrity heart surgeon who has also promoted questionable health advice to national television audiences, has entered the closely watched Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race.

 Oz, a longtime resident of New Jersey, is running as a Republican in a bid to represent the Keystone State. The open contest will likely play a large role in which party controls the Senate in the next political term.

 "We are angry at our government and at each other," Oz said in a statement Tuesday in the right-leaning Washington Examiner announcing his candidacy.

 "We have not managed our crises as effectively as past generations," he wrote. "During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions. That's why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to help fix the problems and to help us heal."

 The Pennsylvania race will likely be among the most consequential in the coming election, and Oz brings with him a medical background at a time when the American public is grappling simultaneously with a deadly pandemic and a devastating misinformation crisis that threatens public health and the nation's democracy.

 In announcing his bid for the Senate, Oz boasted of his background as both the child of immigrants and as a medical professional.

 "Over 750,000 in the United States have died from the virus, a devastating toll for families and communities," he wrote in his statement. "Many of those deaths were preventable. COVID-19 became an excuse for the government and elite thinkers who controlled the means of communication to suspend debate. Dissenting opinions from leading scholars were ridiculed and canceled so their ideas could not be disseminated.

 "Instead, the government mandated policies that caused unnecessary suffering. The public was patronized and misled instead of empowered."

 Oz has promoted hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment. The Food and Drug Administration has cautioned against the personal use of the drug for COVID.

 Oz has previously been criticized for other health recommendations, and has testified at a Senate hearing on deceptive advertising for diet supplements.

 His entrance into the GOP Senate contest follows Sean Parnell's suspension last week of his candidacy. Parnell had the endorsement of former President Donald Trump.

 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * Flipboard
 * Email

 Read & Listen

 * Home
 * News
 * Culture
 * Music
 * Podcasts & Shows

 Connect

 * Newsletters
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * Instagram
 * Press
 * Contact & Help

 About NPR

 * Overview
 * Diversity
 * Accessibility
 * Ethics
 * Finances
 * Public Editor
 * Corrections

 Get Involved

 * Support Public Radio
 * Sponsor NPR
 * NPR Careers
 * NPR Shop
 * NPR Events
 * NPR Extra
 * Terms of Use
 * Privacy
 * Your Privacy Choices
 * Text Only
 * 

 Sponsor Message

 Become an NPR sponsor

Dr. Mehmet Oz, seen here in a December 2019 file photo, joins the Republican field of possible candidates aiming to capture Pennsylvania's open U.S. Senate seat in next year's election.
 
 
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
 
 
  hide caption 
 
   toggle caption 
  
 
 
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dr. Mehmet Oz, seen here in a December 2019 file photo, joins the Republican field of possible candidates aiming to capture Pennsylvania's open U.S. Senate seat in next year's election.
 
 
 Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
 
 
  
 
 Dr. Mehmet Oz, a celebrity heart surgeon who has also promoted questionable health advice to national television audiences, has entered the closely watched Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race. Oz, a longtime resident of New Jersey, is running as a Republican in a bid to represent the Keystone State. The open contest will likely play a large role in which party controls the Senate in the next political term.  "We are angry at our government and at each other," Oz said in a statement Tuesday in the right-leaning Washington Examiner announcing his candidacy. "We have not managed our crises as effectively as past generations," he wrote. "During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions. That's why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to help fix the problems and to help us heal." The Pennsylvania race will likely be among the most consequential in the coming election, and Oz brings with him a medical background at a time when the American public is grappling simultaneously with a deadly pandemic and a devastating misinformation crisis that threatens public health and the nation's democracy.  
 In announcing his bid for the Senate, Oz boasted of his background as both the child of immigrants and as a medical professional.  "Over 750,000 in the United States have died from the virus, a devastating toll for families and communities," he wrote in his statement. "Many of those deaths were preventable. COVID-19 became an excuse for the government and elite thinkers who controlled the means of communication to suspend debate. Dissenting opinions from leading scholars were ridiculed and canceled so their ideas could not be disseminated. "Instead, the government mandated policies that caused unnecessary suffering. The public was patronized and misled instead of empowered." Oz has promoted hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment. The Food and Drug Administration has cautioned against the personal use of the drug for COVID. Oz has previously been criticized for other health recommendations, and has testified at a Senate hearing on deceptive advertising for diet supplements. His entrance into the GOP Senate contest follows Sean Parnell's suspension last week of his candidacy. Parnell had the endorsement of former President Donald Trump.
TV's Dr. Oz enters Pennsylvania's crucial Senate race on the GOP side
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/30/1060185002/tvs-dr-oz-enters-pennsylvanias-crucial-senate-race-on-the-gop-side
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/lauren-boebert-ilhan-omar-video-comments/index.html
Another video shows Lauren Boebert suggesting Ilhan Omar was terrorist | CNN Politics
2021-11-30
Andrew Kaczynski
<div><div>
 <div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Boebert calls Omar 'black-hearted' and 'evil' in new video</p>
 <p>
 03:24
 
 - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p>
 </div>
</div>
 <div>
 <p>Politics of the Day
 16 videos
 </p>
 <div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Boebert calls Omar 'black-hearted' and 'evil' in new video</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 03:24
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'Is it acceptable?': Tapper asks Buttigieg about suspected Chinese spy balloon</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:31
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Tapper asks Rubio about claims of spy balloons during Trump administration</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:36
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Reporter says this is Democrats' fatal flaw</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:02
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Journalist finds something unusual in George Santos' campaign expenses</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 05:20
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Friend shares her last words with beloved NJ councilwoman</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 04:38
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>SE Cupp: GOP sniping about Chinese spy balloon seems so absurd</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:38
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>College Board releases framework of new AP course denounced by DeSantis</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:47
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'I'm asking the questions': Sciutto pushes back on GOP lawmaker over debt ceiling</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 03:53
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Michael Cohen makes prediction on Trump investigation</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:19
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Paul Pelosi attacker pushes conspiracy theories in call to local TV station</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:59
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'Disappointing': GOP governor reacts to Trump's campaign speech</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 03:05
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Santos delivers House floor speech on Holocaust. See CNN anchor's reaction</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:10
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>These history-making women are now in charge of $1.7 trillion in federal spending</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 04:47
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>Trump says DeSantis would be 'disloyal' if he ran for president</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 01:01
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 
 
 
<div>
 <div>
 
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 <p>'Mistakes were made': Pence on classified documents found at his home</p>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 02:37
 </p><p>
 Now playing
 </p>
 <p> - Source:
 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/">CNN</a>
 
 </p></div>
 </div>
</div>
 </div>
 
 </div>
 
 </div><div>
 <p><cite>
 
 CNN
  — 
 </cite>
</p>
 <p>
 Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado suggested to a crowd in September that Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, whom she called “black-hearted” and “evil,” was a terrorist.
 </p>
 <p>
 In those same remarks, she said that she felt safe around Omar because the Democrat wasn’t wearing a backpack while they were in an elevator together. 
 </p>
 <p>
 It’s another instance in which Boebert suggested Omar, who is Muslim and wears a hijab, was a terrorist. On Monday, the two lawmakers sent dueling statements about a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/politics/lauren-boebert-ilhan-omar-response/index.html">phone call between the pair</a> set up by Boebert after she apologized last week to “to anyone in the Muslim community I offended,” when similar comments surfaced on social media.
 </p>
 <p>
 The video of Boebert’s anti-Muslim comments, made in New York at a September Staten Island Conservative Party dinner, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=816347632369591&amp;ref=watch_permalink">were posted on Facebook that</a> month by an attendee running for borough president. 
 </p>
 
 <p>
 “One of my I staffers, on his first day with me, got into an elevator in the Capitol. And in that elevator, we were joined by Ilhan Omar,” Boebert told the crowd in September. “It was just us three in there and I looked over and I said, well, lookey there, it’s the Jihad Squad.
 </p>
 <p>
 “She doesn’t have a backpack, she wasn’t dropping it and running so we’re good,” Boebert adds, through laughter and applause from the crowd which briefly makes her remarks somewhat inaudible.
 </p>
 <p>
 Additionally, at the September event, Boebert also disparaged Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Minnesota, another Muslim member of Congress. 
 </p>
 <p>
 “Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. These are just black-hearted evil women,” Boebert said. 
 </p>
 <p>
 Boebert’s remarks were also <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeDeCillis/status/1435217928803213316">posted on Twitter in September by Mike DeCillis</a>, a New York Democratic congressional candidate. They received little attention <a href="https://www.silive.com/politics/2021/09/controversial-congresswoman-lauren-boebert-calls-fellow-reps-jihad-squad-at-staten-island-conservative-party-event.html">outside of a local press write up</a>, which noted she called her “the jihad squad” and a “black-hearted evil” woman.
 </p>
 <p>
 On Monday, Boebert and Omar spoke on the phone, according to statements from both lawmakers. 
 </p>
 <p>
 “I have reflected on my previous remarks, now as a strong Christian woman who values faith deeply I never want anything I say to offend someone’s religion,” Boebert <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CW3uGwJgeks/">said in a video posted to Instagram</a>. Boebert said Omar asked her to publicly apologize which she would not do and instead challenged Omar to issue an apology of her own for some of the comments she has made in the past.
 </p>
 <p>
 In her statement, Omar said Boebert refused to apologize to her.
 </p>
 <p>
 “Instead of apologizing for her Islamophobic comments and fabricated lies, Rep. Boebert refused to publicly acknowledge her hurtful and dangerous comments,” she said. “She instead doubled down on her rhetoric and I decided to end the unproductive call.” 
 </p>
 <p>
 A spokesperson for Omar called the elevator story “a fabrication.”
 </p>
 <p>
 In her statement blasting Boebert on Monday, Omar said Boebert had “a clear pattern for Islamophobic hate speech,” and cited the local press write up of the September event and comments where Boebert <a href="https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1391957940714737668">called</a> Omar “a full-time propagandist for Hamas” and <a href="https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1402362407771684866">she said</a> Omar was an “honorary member of Hamas” and that we have “terrorist sympathizers” in Congress.
 </p>
 <p>
 Omar on Monday blasted Boebert’s September comments in a message to CNN’s KFile.
 </p>
 <p>
 “It just gets worse,” Omar told CNN. “This is unhinged, and she continues to be emboldened by her party. This is their brand and it’s dangerous.”
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Similar comments surfaced last week on social media when the Twitter account PatriotTakes, a left-wing group that researches right-wing extremism and is associated with the liberal PAC MeidasTouch posted a video of Boebert <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/politics/lauren-boebert-ilhan-omar-anti-muslim-comments/index.html">at an event in Colorado on Nov. 20. </a>
 </p>
 <p>
 In the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/675406701/videos/4787161584667919/">since-removed video posted on Facebook</a> from an event that day, Boebert implied Omar had been mistaken for a terrorist in an elevator on Capitol Hill.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 “So the other night on the House floor was not my first jihad squad moment,” Boebert told a crowd. “I was getting into an elevator with one of my staffers and he and I were leaving the Capitol, we’re going back to my office and we get in the elevator and I see a Capitol Police officer running hurriedly to the elevator. I see fret all over his face. And he’s reaching. The door is shutting. I can’t open it.”
 </p>
 <p>
 “What’s happening? I look to my left and there she is, Ilhan Omar, and I said, ‘Well she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine,’” Boebert continued.
 </p>
 <p>
 Last week, Boebert apologized to any offended in the Muslim community.
 </p>
 <p>
 “I apologize to anyone in the Muslim community I offended with my comment about Rep Omar,” <a href="https://twitter.com/RepBoebert/status/1464289590282498050">Boebert said in a statement</a> posted on Twitter. “I have reached out to her office to speak with her directly. There are plenty of policy differences to focus on without this unnecessary distraction,” she said
 </p>
 <p>
 Omar said the “whole story” was made up and condemned Boebert for her comments.
 </p>
 <p>
 “Fact, this buffoon looks down when she sees me at the Capitol, this whole story is made up. Sad she thinks bigotry gets her clout,” Omar <a href="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1464037767005057024">tweeted on Thursday. </a>“Anti-Muslim bigotry isn’t funny &amp; shouldn’t be normalized. Congress can’t be a place where hateful and dangerous Muslims tropes get no condemnation.”
 </p>
 <p>
 On Friday, Omar called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to take action against Boebert.
 </p>
 <p>
 “Normalizing this bigotry not only endangers my life but the lives of all Muslims,” Omar <a href="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1464303697832431621">said in another tweet.</a> “Anti-Muslim bigotry has no place in Congress.”
 </p>
 <p>
 Democratic leaders said Boebert should fully retract her comments, noting in a statement the congresswoman’s “language and behavior are far beneath the standard of integrity, dignity and decency with which the Constitution and our constituents require that we act in the House.”
 </p>
 <p>
 McCarthy said he spoke to Boebert on Friday in the wake of her comments and encouraged her to meet with Omar.
 </p>
 <p>
 “She has apologized for what she said and has reached out to Congresswoman Omar to meet next week,” McCarthy said in a statement. “I spoke with Leader Hoyer today to help facilitate that meeting so that Congress can get back to talking to each other and working on the challenges facing the American people.”
 </p>
 <p>
 McCarthy’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Boebert’s September comments. Pelosi’s office pointed to their weekend statement. Boebert and her staff did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
 </p>
 </div>||||I|||| The Biden Presidency
 Facts First
 2022 Midterms
 More
 The Biden Presidency Facts First 2022 Midterms
 Audio Live TV
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Search
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Live TV Audio
 Edition
 US
 International
 Arabic
 Español
 Edition
 * US
 * International
 * Arabic
 * Español
 The Biden Presidency
 Facts First
 2022 Midterms
 Follow CNN Politics
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * US
 + Crime + Justice
 + Energy + Environment
 + Extreme Weather
 + Space + Science
 * World
 + Africa
 + Americas
 + Asia
 + Australia
 + China
 + Europe
 + India
 + Middle East
 + United Kingdom
 * Politics
 + SCOTUS
 + Congress
 + Facts First
 + 2020 Election
 * Business
 + Tech
 + Media
 + Success
 + Perspectives
 + Video
 * Markets
 + Pre-markets
 + After-Hours
 + Market Movers
 + Fear & Greed
 + World Markets
 + Investing
 + Markets Now
 + Before the Bell
 + Nightcap
 * Opinion
 + Political Op-Eds
 + Social Commentary
 * Health
 + Life, But Better
 + Fitness
 + Food
 + Sleep
 + Mindfulness
 + Relationships
 * Entertainment
 + Movies
 + Television
 + Celebrity
 * Tech
 + Innovate
 + Gadget
 + Foreseeable Future
 + Mission: Ahead
 + Upstarts
 + Work Transformed
 + Innovative Cities
 * Style
 + Arts
 + Design
 + Fashion
 + Architecture
 + Luxury
 + Beauty
 + Video
 * Travel
 + Destinations
 + Food & Drink
 + Stay
 + Videos
 * Sports
 + Pro Football
 + College Football
 + Basketball
 + Baseball
 + Soccer
 + Olympics
 + Hockey
 * Videos
 + Live TV
 + Digital Studios
 + CNN Films
 + HLN
 + TV Schedule
 + TV Shows A-Z
 + CNNVR
 * CNN Underscored
 + Electronics
 + Fashion
 + Beauty
 + Health & Fitness
 + Home
 + Reviews
 + Deals
 + Money
 + Gifts
 + Travel
 + Outdoors
 + Pets
 + CNN Store
 * Coupons
 * More
 + Photos
 + Longform
 + Investigations
 + CNN Profiles
 + CNN Leadership
 + CNN Newsletters
 + Work for CNN

 Another video shows Lauren Boebert suggesting Ilhan Omar was terrorist

 By Andrew Kaczynski , CNN
 Updated 1:35 PM EST, Tue November 30, 2021
 Link Copied!
 Boebert calls Omar 'black-hearted' and 'evil' in new video
 03:24 - Source: CNN
 Politics of the Day 16 videos
 Boebert calls Omar 'black-hearted' and 'evil' in new video
 03:24
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'Is it acceptable?': Tapper asks Buttigieg about suspected Chinese spy balloon
 02:31
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Tapper asks Rubio about claims of spy balloons during Trump administration
 02:36
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Reporter says this is Democrats' fatal flaw
 01:02
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Journalist finds something unusual in George Santos' campaign expenses
 05:20
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Friend shares her last words with beloved NJ councilwoman
 04:38
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 SE Cupp: GOP sniping about Chinese spy balloon seems so absurd
 01:38
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 College Board releases framework of new AP course denounced by DeSantis
 02:47
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'I'm asking the questions': Sciutto pushes back on GOP lawmaker over debt ceiling
 03:53
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Michael Cohen makes prediction on Trump investigation
 01:19
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Paul Pelosi attacker pushes conspiracy theories in call to local TV station
 02:59
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'Disappointing': GOP governor reacts to Trump's campaign speech
 03:05
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Santos delivers House floor speech on Holocaust. See CNN anchor's reaction
 02:10
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 These history-making women are now in charge of $1.7 trillion in federal spending
 04:47
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 Trump says DeSantis would be 'disloyal' if he ran for president
 01:01
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 'Mistakes were made': Pence on classified documents found at his home
 02:37
 Now playing
 - Source: CNN
 See More Videos
 CNN —

 Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado suggested to a crowd in September that Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, whom she called “black-hearted” and “evil,” was a terrorist.

 In those same remarks, she said that she felt safe around Omar because the Democrat wasn’t wearing a backpack while they were in an elevator together.

 It’s another instance in which Boebert suggested Omar, who is Muslim and wears a hijab, was a terrorist. On Monday, the two lawmakers sent dueling statements about a phone call between the pair set up by Boebert after she apologized last week to “to anyone in the Muslim community I offended,” when similar comments surfaced on social media.

 The video of Boebert’s anti-Muslim comments, made in New York at a September Staten Island Conservative Party dinner, were posted on Facebook that month by an attendee running for borough president.

 Getty Images

 Rep. Lauren Boebert suggested Rep. Ilhan Omar was terrorist in anti-Muslim remarks at event

 “One of my I staffers, on his first day with me, got into an elevator in the Capitol. And in that elevator, we were joined by Ilhan Omar,” Boebert told the crowd in September. “It was just us three in there and I looked over and I said, well, lookey there, it’s the Jihad Squad.

 “She doesn’t have a backpack, she wasn’t dropping it and running so we’re good,” Boebert adds, through laughter and applause from the crowd which briefly makes her remarks somewhat inaudible.

 Additionally, at the September event, Boebert also disparaged Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Minnesota, another Muslim member of Congress.

 “Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. These are just black-hearted evil women,” Boebert said.

 Boebert’s remarks were also posted on Twitter in September by Mike DeCillis, a New York Democratic congressional candidate. They received little attention outside of a local press write up, which noted she called her “the jihad squad” and a “black-hearted evil” woman.

 On Monday, Boebert and Omar spoke on the phone, according to statements from both lawmakers.

 “I have reflected on my previous remarks, now as a strong Christian woman who values faith deeply I never want anything I say to offend someone’s religion,” Boebert said in a video posted to Instagram. Boebert said Omar asked her to publicly apologize which she would not do and instead challenged Omar to issue an apology of her own for some of the comments she has made in the past.

 In her statement, Omar said Boebert refused to apologize to her.

 “Instead of apologizing for her Islamophobic comments and fabricated lies, Rep. Boebert refused to publicly acknowledge her hurtful and dangerous comments,” she said. “She instead doubled down on her rhetoric and I decided to end the unproductive call.”

 A spokesperson for Omar called the elevator story “a fabrication.”

 In her statement blasting Boebert on Monday, Omar said Boebert had “a clear pattern for Islamophobic hate speech,” and cited the local press write up of the September event and comments where Boebert called Omar “a full-time propagandist for Hamas” and she said Omar was an “honorary member of Hamas” and that we have “terrorist sympathizers” in Congress.

 Omar on Monday blasted Boebert’s September comments in a message to CNN’s KFile.

 “It just gets worse,” Omar told CNN. “This is unhinged, and she continues to be emboldened by her party. This is their brand and it’s dangerous.”

 Comments from November

 Similar comments surfaced last week on social media when the Twitter account PatriotTakes, a left-wing group that researches right-wing extremism and is associated with the liberal PAC MeidasTouch posted a video of Boebert at an event in Colorado on Nov. 20.

 In the since-removed video posted on Facebook from an event that day, Boebert implied Omar had been mistaken for a terrorist in an elevator on Capitol Hill.

 CNN

 McCarthy should publicly condemn behavior by GOP members 'crossing the line' on violence and civility, Hutchinson says

 “So the other night on the House floor was not my first jihad squad moment,” Boebert told a crowd. “I was getting into an elevator with one of my staffers and he and I were leaving the Capitol, we’re going back to my office and we get in the elevator and I see a Capitol Police officer running hurriedly to the elevator. I see fret all over his face. And he’s reaching. The door is shutting. I can’t open it.”

 “What’s happening? I look to my left and there she is, Ilhan Omar, and I said, ‘Well she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine,’” Boebert continued.

 Last week, Boebert apologized to any offended in the Muslim community.

 “I apologize to anyone in the Muslim community I offended with my comment about Rep Omar,” Boebert said in a statement posted on Twitter. “I have reached out to her office to speak with her directly. There are plenty of policy differences to focus on without this unnecessary distraction,” she said

 Omar said the “whole story” was made up and condemned Boebert for her comments.

 “Fact, this buffoon looks down when she sees me at the Capitol, this whole story is made up. Sad she thinks bigotry gets her clout,” Omar tweeted on Thursday. “Anti-Muslim bigotry isn’t funny & shouldn’t be normalized. Congress can’t be a place where hateful and dangerous Muslims tropes get no condemnation.”

 On Friday, Omar called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to take action against Boebert.

 “Normalizing this bigotry not only endangers my life but the lives of all Muslims,” Omar said in another tweet. “Anti-Muslim bigotry has no place in Congress.”

 Democratic leaders said Boebert should fully retract her comments, noting in a statement the congresswoman’s “language and behavior are far beneath the standard of integrity, dignity and decency with which the Constitution and our constituents require that we act in the House.”

 McCarthy said he spoke to Boebert on Friday in the wake of her comments and encouraged her to meet with Omar.

 “She has apologized for what she said and has reached out to Congresswoman Omar to meet next week,” McCarthy said in a statement. “I spoke with Leader Hoyer today to help facilitate that meeting so that Congress can get back to talking to each other and working on the challenges facing the American people.”

 McCarthy’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Boebert’s September comments. Pelosi’s office pointed to their weekend statement. Boebert and her staff did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

 Related
 Search
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Live TV Audio
 * US
 + Crime + Justice
 + Energy + Environment
 + Extreme Weather
 + Space + Science
 * World
 + Africa
 + Americas
 + Asia
 + Australia
 + China
 + Europe
 + India
 + Middle East
 + United Kingdom
 * Politics
 + The Biden Presidency
 + Facts First
 + US Elections
 * Business
 + Tech
 + Media
 + Success
 + Perspectives
 + Videos
 * Markets
 + Pre-markets
 + After-Hours
 + Market Movers
 + Fear & Greed
 + World Markets
 + Investing
 + Markets Now
 + Before the Bell
 + Nightcap
 * Opinion
 + Political Op-Eds
 + Social Commentary
 * Health
 + Life, But Better
 + Fitness
 + Food
 + Sleep
 + Mindfulness
 + Relationships
 * Entertainment
 + Movies
 + Television
 + Celebrity
 * Tech
 + Innovate
 + Gadget
 + Foreseeable Future
 + Mission: Ahead
 + Upstarts
 + Work Transformed
 + Innovative Cities
 * Style
 + Arts
 + Design
 + Fashion
 + Architecture
 + Luxury
 + Beauty
 + Video
 * Travel
 + Destinations
 + Food & Drink
 + Stay
 + News
 + Videos
 * Sports
 + Pro Football
 + College Football
 + Basketball
 + Baseball
 + Soccer
 + Olympics
 + Hockey
 * Videos
 + Live TV
 + Digital Studios
 + CNN Films
 + HLN
 + TV Schedule
 + TV Shows A-Z
 + CNNVR
 * Audio
 * CNN Underscored
 + Electronics
 + Fashion
 + Beauty
 + Health & Fitness
 + Home
 + Reviews
 + Deals
 + Money
 + Gifts
 + Travel
 + Outdoors
 + Pets
 + CNN Store
 * Coupons
 * Weather
 + Climate
 + Storm Tracker
 + Wildfire Tracker
 + Video
 * More
 + Photos
 + Longform
 + Investigations
 + CNN Profiles
 + CNN Leadership
 + CNN Newsletters
 + Work for CNN
 Audio Live TV
 Follow CNN Politics
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Log In
 My Account
 * Settings
 * Log Out
 Your CNN account Log in to your CNN account
 Terms of Use Privacy Policy Ad Choices Accessibility & CC About Newsletters Transcripts

 © 2023 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
 CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.

Boebert calls Omar 'black-hearted' and 'evil' in new video
 
 03:24
 
 - Source:
 CNN
 
 
 
 
 Politics of the Day
 16 videos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Boebert calls Omar 'black-hearted' and 'evil' in new video
 
 
 
 03:24
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Is it acceptable?': Tapper asks Buttigieg about suspected Chinese spy balloon
 
 
 
 02:31
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tapper asks Rubio about claims of spy balloons during Trump administration
 
 
 
 02:36
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Reporter says this is Democrats' fatal flaw
 
 
 
 01:02
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Journalist finds something unusual in George Santos' campaign expenses
 
 
 
 05:20
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Friend shares her last words with beloved NJ councilwoman
 
 
 
 04:38
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SE Cupp: GOP sniping about Chinese spy balloon seems so absurd
 
 
 
 01:38
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 College Board releases framework of new AP course denounced by DeSantis
 
 
 
 02:47
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'I'm asking the questions': Sciutto pushes back on GOP lawmaker over debt ceiling
 
 
 
 03:53
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Michael Cohen makes prediction on Trump investigation
 
 
 
 01:19
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paul Pelosi attacker pushes conspiracy theories in call to local TV station
 
 
 
 02:59
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Disappointing': GOP governor reacts to Trump's campaign speech
 
 
 
 03:05
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Santos delivers House floor speech on Holocaust. See CNN anchor's reaction
 
 
 
 02:10
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 These history-making women are now in charge of $1.7 trillion in federal spending
 
 
 
 04:47
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Trump says DeSantis would be 'disloyal' if he ran for president
 
 
 
 01:01
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Mistakes were made': Pence on classified documents found at his home
 
 
 
 02:37
  
 Now playing
 
  - Source:
 CNN
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 CNN
  — 
 
 
 Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado suggested to a crowd in September that Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, whom she called “black-hearted” and “evil,” was a terrorist.
 
 
 In those same remarks, she said that she felt safe around Omar because the Democrat wasn’t wearing a backpack while they were in an elevator together. 
 
 
 It’s another instance in which Boebert suggested Omar, who is Muslim and wears a hijab, was a terrorist. On Monday, the two lawmakers sent dueling statements about a phone call between the pair set up by Boebert after she apologized last week to “to anyone in the Muslim community I offended,” when similar comments surfaced on social media.
 
 
 The video of Boebert’s anti-Muslim comments, made in New York at a September Staten Island Conservative Party dinner, were posted on Facebook that month by an attendee running for borough president. 
 
 
 
 “One of my I staffers, on his first day with me, got into an elevator in the Capitol. And in that elevator, we were joined by Ilhan Omar,” Boebert told the crowd in September. “It was just us three in there and I looked over and I said, well, lookey there, it’s the Jihad Squad.
 
 
 “She doesn’t have a backpack, she wasn’t dropping it and running so we’re good,” Boebert adds, through laughter and applause from the crowd which briefly makes her remarks somewhat inaudible.
 
 
 Additionally, at the September event, Boebert also disparaged Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Minnesota, another Muslim member of Congress. 
 
 
 “Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. These are just black-hearted evil women,” Boebert said. 
 
 
 Boebert’s remarks were also posted on Twitter in September by Mike DeCillis, a New York Democratic congressional candidate. They received little attention outside of a local press write up, which noted she called her “the jihad squad” and a “black-hearted evil” woman.
 
 
 On Monday, Boebert and Omar spoke on the phone, according to statements from both lawmakers. 
 
 
 “I have reflected on my previous remarks, now as a strong Christian woman who values faith deeply I never want anything I say to offend someone’s religion,” Boebert said in a video posted to Instagram. Boebert said Omar asked her to publicly apologize which she would not do and instead challenged Omar to issue an apology of her own for some of the comments she has made in the past.
 
 
 In her statement, Omar said Boebert refused to apologize to her.
 
 
 “Instead of apologizing for her Islamophobic comments and fabricated lies, Rep. Boebert refused to publicly acknowledge her hurtful and dangerous comments,” she said. “She instead doubled down on her rhetoric and I decided to end the unproductive call.” 
 
 
 A spokesperson for Omar called the elevator story “a fabrication.”
 
 
 In her statement blasting Boebert on Monday, Omar said Boebert had “a clear pattern for Islamophobic hate speech,” and cited the local press write up of the September event and comments where Boebert called Omar “a full-time propagandist for Hamas” and she said Omar was an “honorary member of Hamas” and that we have “terrorist sympathizers” in Congress.
 
 
 Omar on Monday blasted Boebert’s September comments in a message to CNN’s KFile.
 
 
 “It just gets worse,” Omar told CNN. “This is unhinged, and she continues to be emboldened by her party. This is their brand and it’s dangerous.”
 
 
 
 Similar comments surfaced last week on social media when the Twitter account PatriotTakes, a left-wing group that researches right-wing extremism and is associated with the liberal PAC MeidasTouch posted a video of Boebert at an event in Colorado on Nov. 20. 
 
 
 In the since-removed video posted on Facebook from an event that day, Boebert implied Omar had been mistaken for a terrorist in an elevator on Capitol Hill.
 
 
 
 “So the other night on the House floor was not my first jihad squad moment,” Boebert told a crowd. “I was getting into an elevator with one of my staffers and he and I were leaving the Capitol, we’re going back to my office and we get in the elevator and I see a Capitol Police officer running hurriedly to the elevator. I see fret all over his face. And he’s reaching. The door is shutting. I can’t open it.”
 
 
 “What’s happening? I look to my left and there she is, Ilhan Omar, and I said, ‘Well she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine,’” Boebert continued.
 
 
 Last week, Boebert apologized to any offended in the Muslim community.
 
 
 “I apologize to anyone in the Muslim community I offended with my comment about Rep Omar,” Boebert said in a statement posted on Twitter. “I have reached out to her office to speak with her directly. There are plenty of policy differences to focus on without this unnecessary distraction,” she said
 
 
 Omar said the “whole story” was made up and condemned Boebert for her comments.
 
 
 “Fact, this buffoon looks down when she sees me at the Capitol, this whole story is made up. Sad she thinks bigotry gets her clout,” Omar tweeted on Thursday. “Anti-Muslim bigotry isn’t funny &amp; shouldn’t be normalized. Congress can’t be a place where hateful and dangerous Muslims tropes get no condemnation.”
 
 
 On Friday, Omar called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to take action against Boebert.
 
 
 “Normalizing this bigotry not only endangers my life but the lives of all Muslims,” Omar said in another tweet. “Anti-Muslim bigotry has no place in Congress.”
 
 
 Democratic leaders said Boebert should fully retract her comments, noting in a statement the congresswoman’s “language and behavior are far beneath the standard of integrity, dignity and decency with which the Constitution and our constituents require that we act in the House.”
 
 
 McCarthy said he spoke to Boebert on Friday in the wake of her comments and encouraged her to meet with Omar.
 
 
 “She has apologized for what she said and has reached out to Congresswoman Omar to meet next week,” McCarthy said in a statement. “I spoke with Leader Hoyer today to help facilitate that meeting so that Congress can get back to talking to each other and working on the challenges facing the American people.”
 
 
 McCarthy’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Boebert’s September comments. Pelosi’s office pointed to their weekend statement. Boebert and her staff did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Another video shows Lauren Boebert suggesting Ilhan Omar was terrorist | CNN Politics
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/politics/lauren-boebert-ilhan-omar-video-comments/index.html
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary/andrew-yang-and-the-weird-arcs-of-political-fame
Andrew Yang and the Weird Arcs of Political Fame
2021-12-01
Condé Nast
<div><div><p>What’s in a name? A lot, really, in the world of electoral politics—as the case of Andrew Yang suggests. His Presidential run, in 2020, though ultimately unsuccessful, made Yang one of the most recognized figures in U.S. politics. So, it wasn’t entirely unsurprising that, in January of 2021, he announced that he was running for New York City mayor. Unlike in the Presidential campaign, the winner of the Democratic mayoral primary would be virtually assured of general-election victory; as in the Presidential campaign, the winner would have elbowed their way through <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/new-york-citys-clown-car-mayoral-race">a crowded field</a> of candidates. Yang’s campaign would eventually flow and ebb with public opinion—an experience all too familiar to political candidates—in a dynamic that Sara Joe Wolansky and Gareth Smit explore in their new documentary, “The Andrew Yang Show.”</p><p>Yang carried over his sunny outlook from the Presidential race to the mayoral contest. “He was so exuberant, bouncy, and happy, and he laughed. He was riding high because he was No. 1 for a long time,” Sally Goldenberg, of Politico, says of Yang’s ratings in the campaign’s early months; it was a competitive field, but Yang had “parachuted into and dominated” it. The city was mending, if not roaring back, from the <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/tag/coronavirus">coronavirus pandemic</a>, and Yang could be <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/andrew-yang-and-the-political-narratives-of-asian-americans">the face</a> of that new phase. His proposal for a universal basic income, once <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/more-americans-oppose-than-favor-the-government-providing-a-universal-basic-income-for-all-adult-citizens/">a novelty</a>, now had <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00760-7">broader support</a>, and he could campaign on the promise of an “ <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/andrew-yangs-ideas-on-universal-basic-income-earned-him-fans-but-can-he-win-votes">‘anti-poverty’ city</a>” and a tech entrepreneur’s penchant for innovation.</p><p>Wolansky and Smit’s film looks at the ways that the changing course of the race changed the candidate. “Our hope was to capture the visceral feeling of what it was like to be him both at his highest and at his lowest,” Wolansky said. “How did his psychology and temperament transform as polls went up and down?” As voters’ priorities shifted from pandemic recovery to public-security concerns, the cheery attributes that once made Yang a favorite hamstrung his attempts to project solemnity, and the gaps in his policy knowledge dulled his image as a serious candidate. He seemed to connect with people while he was out stumping, but questions about whether he was truly a New Yorker—and a fateful trip to a “<a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1350079442488590337">bodega</a>”—diminished his ability to turn friendly selfies into votes.</p><p>As the city reopened, new instances of violence against Asian Americans came to the fore, and <a href="https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/hate-crime">an F.B.I. report confirmed</a> an over-all increase in hate crimes. Yang had the platform and the personal experience to talk about anti-Asian discrimination and violence in the country. “It was an unprecedented moment to be an Asian American,” Michael Luo, the editor of newyorker.com, says. “Honestly, I thought that was it—he’s gonna become the mayor of New York.” But that moment did not last long. Yang alienated progressives with his <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/553496-yang-defund-the-police-is-the-wrong-approach-for-new-york-city">police-reform ideas</a>, and some of his public interactions revealed a lack of familiarity with city politics. It also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/nyregion/andrew-yang-mayor-nyc.html">emerged</a> that Yang had never voted in a New York City mayoral election, and that he and his family had spent most of the pandemic in their second home, upstate.</p><p>The turning point in the race came with <a href="https://apnews.com/article/nyc-state-wire-new-york-new-york-city-shootings-c6d9e079641a572cd5e9c5d830f88f43">the Times Square shooting</a> of May, 2021, when three bystanders were injured after someone opened fire, following a dispute, on a busy street. “It was at that point where the conversation really shifted toward public safety,” Elizabeth Kim, of Gothamist and WNYC, says. The focus was now on <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/eric-adams-wants-to-compstat-new-york-city">Eric Adams</a>, a former N.Y.P.D. captain, who had campaigned on public safety. Yang tried to pivot to the crime issue and went on the offensive against Adams. He even campaigned with <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/kathryn-garcia-doesnt-want-andrew-yangs-praise">Kathryn Garcia</a>, the former sanitation commissioner, ostensibly to promote ranked-choice voting. But their partnership was not enough to stop Adams, who won the Democratic primary and eventually beat the Republican candidate, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/the-mayoral-candidate-with-a-mouth-that-roars">Curtis Sliwa</a>, in <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/after-a-wild-ride-eric-adams-takes-the-wheel">the general election</a>.</p><p>Yang may not be moving into Gracie Mansion anytime soon, but he is not done with politics. What exactly he will do with the fame that he garnered during his almost two years of political campaigning remains to be seen, Wolansky said, “whether it be something to a political or societal end or to further his own brand, or some combination of both.” Not long after the mayoral election, Yang formed a political-action committee with the goal of establishing a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/andrew-yangs-third-party-aspirations">third party</a> in U.S. politics. Its motto: not left, not right, forward.</p><hr /><h2>New Yorker Favorites</h2><ul><li>The <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-day-the-dinosaurs-died?itm_content=footer-recirc">day the dinosaurs died</a>.</li><li>What if you could <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/12/21/what-if-you-could-do-it-all-over?itm_content=footer-recirc">do it all over</a>?</li><li>A suspense novelist leaves a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/a-suspense-novelists-trail-of-deceptions?itm_content=footer-recirc">trail of deceptions</a>.</li><li>The <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/23/the-art-of-dying?itm_content=footer-recirc">art of dying</a>.</li><li>Can <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/can-reading-make-you-happier?itm_content=footer-recirc">reading make you happier</a>?</li><li>A simple guide to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/tote-bag-culture-etiquette?itm_content=footer-recirc">tote-bag etiquette</a>.</li><li>Sign up for our daily <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/daily?itm_content=footer-recirc">newsletter</a> to receive the best stories from <em>The New Yorker</em>.</li></ul></div>||||I|||| Skip to main content
 * Newsletter

 To revisit this article, select My Account, then View saved stories

 Close Alert
 Sign In
 Search
 * News
 * Books & Culture
 * Fiction & Poetry
 * Humor & Cartoons
 * Magazine
 * Puzzles & Games
 * Video
 * Podcasts
 * Archive
 * Goings On
 * Shop
 Open Navigation Menu

 To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories

 Close Alert
 The New Yorker Documentary
 * The Queue to See the Queen
 * The Blind Man Running a Diner
 * A Veteran’s Islamophobia Transformed
 * Submit Your Film
 The New Yorker Documentary

 Andrew Yang and the Weird Arcs of Political Fame

 “The Andrew Yang Show” dissects what propelled the candidate to the top of New York City’s mayoral race—and what brought him down.

 Film by Sara Joe Wolansky and Gareth Smit

 Text by Sumit Poudyal

 December 1, 2021
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

 As voters’ priorities shifted from pandemic recovery to public-security concerns, the cheery attributes that once made Yang a favorite hamstrung his attempts to project solemnity.

 What’s in a name? A lot, really, in the world of electoral politics—as the case of Andrew Yang suggests. His Presidential run, in 2020, though ultimately unsuccessful, made Yang one of the most recognized figures in U.S. politics. So, it wasn’t entirely unsurprising that, in January of 2021, he announced that he was running for New York City mayor. Unlike in the Presidential campaign, the winner of the Democratic mayoral primary would be virtually assured of general-election victory; as in the Presidential campaign, the winner would have elbowed their way through a crowded field of candidates. Yang’s campaign would eventually flow and ebb with public opinion—an experience all too familiar to political candidates—in a dynamic that Sara Joe Wolansky and Gareth Smit explore in their new documentary, “The Andrew Yang Show.”

 Yang carried over his sunny outlook from the Presidential race to the mayoral contest. “He was so exuberant, bouncy, and happy, and he laughed. He was riding high because he was No. 1 for a long time,” Sally Goldenberg, of Politico, says of Yang’s ratings in the campaign’s early months; it was a competitive field, but Yang had “parachuted into and dominated” it. The city was mending, if not roaring back, from the coronavirus pandemic, and Yang could be the face of that new phase. His proposal for a universal basic income, once a novelty, now had broader support, and he could campaign on the promise of an “ ‘anti-poverty’ city” and a tech entrepreneur’s penchant for innovation.

 The New Yorker Documentary

 View the latest or submit your own film.

 Wolansky and Smit’s film looks at the ways that the changing course of the race changed the candidate. “Our hope was to capture the visceral feeling of what it was like to be him both at his highest and at his lowest,” Wolansky said. “How did his psychology and temperament transform as polls went up and down?” As voters’ priorities shifted from pandemic recovery to public-security concerns, the cheery attributes that once made Yang a favorite hamstrung his attempts to project solemnity, and the gaps in his policy knowledge dulled his image as a serious candidate. He seemed to connect with people while he was out stumping, but questions about whether he was truly a New Yorker—and a fateful trip to a “bodega”—diminished his ability to turn friendly selfies into votes.

 As the city reopened, new instances of violence against Asian Americans came to the fore, and an F.B.I. report confirmed an over-all increase in hate crimes. Yang had the platform and the personal experience to talk about anti-Asian discrimination and violence in the country. “It was an unprecedented moment to be an Asian American,” Michael Luo, the editor of newyorker.com, says. “Honestly, I thought that was it—he’s gonna become the mayor of New York.” But that moment did not last long. Yang alienated progressives with his police-reform ideas, and some of his public interactions revealed a lack of familiarity with city politics. It also emerged that Yang had never voted in a New York City mayoral election, and that he and his family had spent most of the pandemic in their second home, upstate.

 The turning point in the race came with the Times Square shooting of May, 2021, when three bystanders were injured after someone opened fire, following a dispute, on a busy street. “It was at that point where the conversation really shifted toward public safety,” Elizabeth Kim, of Gothamist and WNYC, says. The focus was now on Eric Adams, a former N.Y.P.D. captain, who had campaigned on public safety. Yang tried to pivot to the crime issue and went on the offensive against Adams. He even campaigned with Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner, ostensibly to promote ranked-choice voting. But their partnership was not enough to stop Adams, who won the Democratic primary and eventually beat the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, in the general election.

 Yang may not be moving into Gracie Mansion anytime soon, but he is not done with politics. What exactly he will do with the fame that he garnered during his almost two years of political campaigning remains to be seen, Wolansky said, “whether it be something to a political or societal end or to further his own brand, or some combination of both.” Not long after the mayoral election, Yang formed a political-action committee with the goal of establishing a third party in U.S. politics. Its motto: not left, not right, forward.

 New Yorker Favorites

 * The day the dinosaurs died.
 * What if you could do it all over?
 * A suspense novelist leaves a trail of deceptions.
 * The art of dying.
 * Can reading make you happier?
 * A simple guide to tote-bag etiquette.
 * Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker.
 More: Video Documentary Andrew Yang New York City

 The New Yorker Recommends

 Highlights from the week in culture, every Saturday. Plus: each Wednesday, exclusively for subscribers, the best books of the week.
 E-mail address
 Sign up

 By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement.

 Read More
 A Reporter at Large
 A Murder Roils the Cycling World
 In gravel racing—the sport’s hottest category—the killing has exposed a lot of dirt.

 By Ian Parker

 A Reporter at Large
 The Getty Family’s Trust Issues
 Heirs to an iconic fortune sought out a wealth manager who would assuage their progressive consciences. Now their dispute is exposing dynastic secrets.

 By Evan Osnos

 Daily Comment
 Why I Quit Elon Musk’s Twitter
 A platform that once represented the new frontier of digital democracy is being used by the world’s richest man to troll us all.

 By Jelani Cobb

 Letter from South Carolina
 The Corrupt World Behind the Murdaugh Murders
 In isolated, poor regions of South Carolina, coming from an élite family offered a feeling of impunity. Did this license lead Alex Murdaugh to commit fraud after fraud—and then kill his wife and son?

 By James Lasdun

 Sections

 * News
 * Books & Culture
 * Fiction & Poetry
 * Humor & Cartoons
 * Magazine
 * Crossword
 * Video
 * Podcasts
 * Archive
 * Goings On

 More

 * Customer Care
 * Shop The New Yorker
 * Buy Covers and Cartoons
 * Condé Nast Store
 * Digital Access
 * Newsletters
 * Jigsaw Puzzle
 * RSS
 * About
 * Careers
 * Contact
 * F.A.Q.
 * Media Kit
 * Press
 * Accessibility Help
 * Condé Nast Spotlight

 © 2023 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement and Your California Privacy Rights. The New Yorker may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Do Not Sell My Personal Info
What’s in a name? A lot, really, in the world of electoral politics—as the case of Andrew Yang suggests. His Presidential run, in 2020, though ultimately unsuccessful, made Yang one of the most recognized figures in U.S. politics. So, it wasn’t entirely unsurprising that, in January of 2021, he announced that he was running for New York City mayor. Unlike in the Presidential campaign, the winner of the Democratic mayoral primary would be virtually assured of general-election victory; as in the Presidential campaign, the winner would have elbowed their way through a crowded field of candidates. Yang’s campaign would eventually flow and ebb with public opinion—an experience all too familiar to political candidates—in a dynamic that Sara Joe Wolansky and Gareth Smit explore in their new documentary, “The Andrew Yang Show.” Yang carried over his sunny outlook from the Presidential race to the mayoral contest. “He was so exuberant, bouncy, and happy, and he laughed. He was riding high because he was No. 1 for a long time,” Sally Goldenberg, of Politico, says of Yang’s ratings in the campaign’s early months; it was a competitive field, but Yang had “parachuted into and dominated” it. The city was mending, if not roaring back, from the coronavirus pandemic, and Yang could be the face of that new phase. His proposal for a universal basic income, once a novelty, now had broader support, and he could campaign on the promise of an “ ‘anti-poverty’ city” and a tech entrepreneur’s penchant for innovation. Wolansky and Smit’s film looks at the ways that the changing course of the race changed the candidate. “Our hope was to capture the visceral feeling of what it was like to be him both at his highest and at his lowest,” Wolansky said. “How did his psychology and temperament transform as polls went up and down?” As voters’ priorities shifted from pandemic recovery to public-security concerns, the cheery attributes that once made Yang a favorite hamstrung his attempts to project solemnity, and the gaps in his policy knowledge dulled his image as a serious candidate. He seemed to connect with people while he was out stumping, but questions about whether he was truly a New Yorker—and a fateful trip to a “bodega”—diminished his ability to turn friendly selfies into votes. As the city reopened, new instances of violence against Asian Americans came to the fore, and an F.B.I. report confirmed an over-all increase in hate crimes. Yang had the platform and the personal experience to talk about anti-Asian discrimination and violence in the country. “It was an unprecedented moment to be an Asian American,” Michael Luo, the editor of newyorker.com, says. “Honestly, I thought that was it—he’s gonna become the mayor of New York.” But that moment did not last long. Yang alienated progressives with his police-reform ideas, and some of his public interactions revealed a lack of familiarity with city politics. It also emerged that Yang had never voted in a New York City mayoral election, and that he and his family had spent most of the pandemic in their second home, upstate. The turning point in the race came with the Times Square shooting of May, 2021, when three bystanders were injured after someone opened fire, following a dispute, on a busy street. “It was at that point where the conversation really shifted toward public safety,” Elizabeth Kim, of Gothamist and WNYC, says. The focus was now on Eric Adams, a former N.Y.P.D. captain, who had campaigned on public safety. Yang tried to pivot to the crime issue and went on the offensive against Adams. He even campaigned with Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner, ostensibly to promote ranked-choice voting. But their partnership was not enough to stop Adams, who won the Democratic primary and eventually beat the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, in the general election. Yang may not be moving into Gracie Mansion anytime soon, but he is not done with politics. What exactly he will do with the fame that he garnered during his almost two years of political campaigning remains to be seen, Wolansky said, “whether it be something to a political or societal end or to further his own brand, or some combination of both.” Not long after the mayoral election, Yang formed a political-action committee with the goal of establishing a third party in U.S. politics. Its motto: not left, not right, forward.  New Yorker Favorites  The day the dinosaurs died. What if you could do it all over? A suspense novelist leaves a trail of deceptions. The art of dying. Can reading make you happier? A simple guide to tote-bag etiquette. Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker.
Andrew Yang and the Weird Arcs of Political Fame
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary/andrew-yang-and-the-weird-arcs-of-political-fame
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/29/canada-united-states-political-systems-differences/
Opinion | What sets Canadian and U.S. politics apart? Three critical differences.
2021-11-29
J J McCullough
<div><div><div><p>Neither Canada nor the United States is in the best political health these days, but the symptoms plaguing each country run in sharply different directions. If excessive division is preventing Americans from getting much done, too much consensus in Canada makes doing the wrong things too easy.</p><p>Though it’s popular to blame “culture” for any political divergences between the two countries, there are at least three prominent structural variables citizens on both sides of the border should be aware of.</p></div><p><b>1. It’s easier to get elected in Canada — even if you’re unpopular</b></p><p>In both Canada and the United States, politicians can get elected without a majority of the popular vote — either via a narrow plurality in a three-or-more person race, or through the convolutions of the electoral college or parliamentary system, which prioritize representation for states or provinces over the national vote.</p><p>In Canada, however, an entrenched three-party-plus system makes politicians elected with very low levels of popularity more norm than exception. Justin Trudeau holds the dubious distinction of being Canada’s most <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2021/first-reading-the-least-popular-canadian-government-ever-elected">unpopular</a> prime minister by vote share, elected three times with his party receiving less than 40 percent of the popular vote. Almost every provincial government currently serving has been elected with under 50 percent of the popular vote as well.</p><div><p><strong>Follow</strong> J.J. McCullough's opinionsFollow</p></div><p>Americans have gotten used to the phenomena of presidents who fail to win a popular majority. Yet the U.S. two-party system still all but guarantees even unpopular presidents win comparatively large percentages of the electorate.<b> </b>Former president Donald Trump <i>lost</i> the presidency in 2020 with a higher percentage of the popular vote than any successful Canadian prime minister has <i>won</i> in <a href="https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Elecdata/Canada/parl84.html">nearly 40 years</a>. American governors are almost always elected with majorities.</p><p>American parties accordingly remain far more obsessed with cobbling together majoritarian blocs than their Canadian counterparts. The aftermath of Democrat losses in Virginia, coupled with declining numbers for President Biden, has seen many liberals anxiously worried that their party’s delicate center-left coalition may not be big enough. One hears this sort of thing far less in Canada, where even a party disliked by more than 60 percent of the country or province can still easily win and wield tremendous political power — albeit during a reign which will almost certainly be marked by <a href="https://angusreid.org/trudeau-tracker/">consistently underwater approval ratings</a>.</p><p><b>2. Canadian political parties are much more powerful</b></p><p>A source of ongoing drama in the United States has been incessant wheeling and dealing over the fate of Biden’s domestic agenda in the Senate, where two centrist Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), have been leveraging their votes to extract concessions from an administration more progressive than themselves. Such maverick lawmakers can exist in the United States because U.S. political parties are weak and non-hierarchical. In Canada, by contrast, political parties are extraordinarily hierarchical and free-voting lawmakers are virtually unknown — even the most “rebellious” member of parliament still votes with his party leadership <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-report-finds-mps-vote-with-own-party-996-per-cent-of-the-time-warns/">96.6 percent of the time</a>. And why wouldn’t they? Party leaders can <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/5123526/liberal-caucus-wilson-raybould-jane-philpott/">expel rebels</a> from the party and deny their ability to run under the party name.</p><p>This has made Canada’s rubber-stamp parliament a vastly less interesting institution than the U.S. Congress — one of many reasons Canadian political junkies <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/16/us-politics-has-too-many-canadian-pundits/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16">often prefer to follow U.S. politics</a>. But it also makes governing much easier for prime ministers than presidents, with significant consequences for who accomplishes more — for good or ill.</p><p><b>3. Canadians vote less than Americans</b></p><p>Both U.S. parties are waging high profile battles for their “souls,” with outcomes generally settled through party primaries. Millions of ordinary Americans vote in these candidate-nominating elections, which are run by the state. Canadian candidates, by contrast, are picked by extremely small numbers of fee-paying party “members” through intraparty procedures that remain nonstandardized and opaque. Last year, just <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-leadership-results-1.5695925">175,000</a> Conservative Party members (about 0.45 percent of Canada) elected Erin O’Toole their prime ministerial candidate — a number smaller than those who voted in the Democratic primary in <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/2020-live-results-new-hampshire-democratic-primary/?itid=lk_inline_manual_20">New Hampshire</a> alone.</p><p>American democratic reform advocates, such as <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/andrew-yangs-third-party-aspirations">Andrew Yang</a>, often argue democracy in the United States will only improve when primaries become <i>more</i> central to the American political process. Increasingly popular “jungle primaries” basically seek to eliminate partisan gatekeeping of general election candidates altogether by allowing multiple self-identified Democrats and Republicans to run against each other simultaneously. No one promotes anything like this in Canada, where the political culture instead revolves around assumptions party bosses should be held <a href="https://jjmccullough.medium.com/timeline-of-disqualified-candidates-in-the-2021-canadian-election-updating-3bc4072d7355">personally accountable</a> for every politician nominated under “their” banner — further incentivizing conformist, unambitious candidates.</p><p>Which system sounds better? To some extent, everyone wants a government that gives voters maximum control over politicians — but they also tend to want a system in which it’s easy for their side to win, some ideas are never entertained, and leaders (they like) can govern without restraint. No one democracy can provide all these things, however, and Canada and the United States illustrate the consequences of the trade-offs.</p><div><ul><li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/02/ontario-health-care-privatization-scare/?itid=co_opcanada_1"><div><p>Opinion|No, Ontario is not ‘privatizing’ Canadian health care</p></div></a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/02/ontario-health-care-privatization-scare/?itid=co_opcanada_1"><figure></figure><div><p>Opinion|No, Ontario is not ‘privatizing’ Canadian health care</p></div></a></li><li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/25/ontario-health-care-crisis-for-profit-services/?itid=co_opcanada_2"><div><p>Opinion| The wrong way to fix Ontario’s health-care crisis</p></div></a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/25/ontario-health-care-crisis-for-profit-services/?itid=co_opcanada_2"><figure></figure><div><p>Opinion| The wrong way to fix Ontario’s health-care crisis</p></div></a></li><li><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/23/canada-edging-toward-right-to-suicide/?itid=co_opcanada_3"><div><p>Opinion|Canada is edging toward creating a right to suicide </p></div></a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/23/canada-edging-toward-right-to-suicide/?itid=co_opcanada_3"><figure></figure><div><p>Opinion|Canada is edging toward creating a right to suicide </p></div></a></li></ul></div></div>||||I|||| Accessibility statementSkip to main content
 Search Navigation
 Democracy Dies in Darkness

 Sign in

 This article was published more than 1 year ago

 Democracy Dies in Darkness
 Global Opinions
 Opinions
 Editorial Board
 War in Ukraine
 Submit a guest opinion

 Opinion
 What sets Canadian and U.S. politics apart? Three critical differences.

 By J.J. McCullough
 Global Opinions contributing columnist | Follow
 November 29, 2021 at 5:04 p.m. EST

 President Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House on Nov. 18. (Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg)

 Comment
 Gift Article
 Share

 Neither Canada nor the United States is in the best political health these days, but the symptoms plaguing each country run in sharply different directions. If excessive division is preventing Americans from getting much done, too much consensus in Canada makes doing the wrong things too easy.

 Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

 Though it’s popular to blame “culture” for any political divergences between the two countries, there are at least three prominent structural variables citizens on both sides of the border should be aware of.

 1. It’s easier to get elected in Canada — even if you’re unpopular

 In both Canada and the United States, politicians can get elected without a majority of the popular vote — either via a narrow plurality in a three-or-more person race, or through the convolutions of the electoral college or parliamentary system, which prioritize representation for states or provinces over the national vote.

 Advertisement

 In Canada, however, an entrenched three-party-plus system makes politicians elected with very low levels of popularity more norm than exception. Justin Trudeau holds the dubious distinction of being Canada’s most unpopular prime minister by vote share, elected three times with his party receiving less than 40 percent of the popular vote. Almost every provincial government currently serving has been elected with under 50 percent of the popular vote as well.

 Follow J.J. McCullough's opinions Follow

 Americans have gotten used to the phenomena of presidents who fail to win a popular majority. Yet the U.S. two-party system still all but guarantees even unpopular presidents win comparatively large percentages of the electorate. Former president Donald Trump lost the presidency in 2020 with a higher percentage of the popular vote than any successful Canadian prime minister has won in nearly 40 years. American governors are almost always elected with majorities.

 American parties accordingly remain far more obsessed with cobbling together majoritarian blocs than their Canadian counterparts. The aftermath of Democrat losses in Virginia, coupled with declining numbers for President Biden, has seen many liberals anxiously worried that their party’s delicate center-left coalition may not be big enough. One hears this sort of thing far less in Canada, where even a party disliked by more than 60 percent of the country or province can still easily win and wield tremendous political power — albeit during a reign which will almost certainly be marked by consistently underwater approval ratings.

 Advertisement

 2. Canadian political parties are much more powerful

 A source of ongoing drama in the United States has been incessant wheeling and dealing over the fate of Biden’s domestic agenda in the Senate, where two centrist Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), have been leveraging their votes to extract concessions from an administration more progressive than themselves. Such maverick lawmakers can exist in the United States because U.S. political parties are weak and non-hierarchical. In Canada, by contrast, political parties are extraordinarily hierarchical and free-voting lawmakers are virtually unknown — even the most “rebellious” member of parliament still votes with his party leadership 96.6 percent of the time. And why wouldn’t they? Party leaders can expel rebels from the party and deny their ability to run under the party name.

 This has made Canada’s rubber-stamp parliament a vastly less interesting institution than the U.S. Congress — one of many reasons Canadian political junkies often prefer to follow U.S. politics. But it also makes governing much easier for prime ministers than presidents, with significant consequences for who accomplishes more — for good or ill.

 Advertisement

 3. Canadians vote less than Americans

 Both U.S. parties are waging high profile battles for their “souls,” with outcomes generally settled through party primaries. Millions of ordinary Americans vote in these candidate-nominating elections, which are run by the state. Canadian candidates, by contrast, are picked by extremely small numbers of fee-paying party “members” through intraparty procedures that remain nonstandardized and opaque. Last year, just 175,000 Conservative Party members (about 0.45 percent of Canada) elected Erin O’Toole their prime ministerial candidate — a number smaller than those who voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire alone.

 American democratic reform advocates, such as Andrew Yang, often argue democracy in the United States will only improve when primaries become more central to the American political process. Increasingly popular “jungle primaries” basically seek to eliminate partisan gatekeeping of general election candidates altogether by allowing multiple self-identified Democrats and Republicans to run against each other simultaneously. No one promotes anything like this in Canada, where the political culture instead revolves around assumptions party bosses should be held personally accountable for every politician nominated under “their” banner — further incentivizing conformist, unambitious candidates.

 Advertisement

 Which system sounds better? To some extent, everyone wants a government that gives voters maximum control over politicians — but they also tend to want a system in which it’s easy for their side to win, some ideas are never entertained, and leaders (they like) can govern without restraint. No one democracy can provide all these things, however, and Canada and the United States illustrate the consequences of the trade-offs.

 Comments
 Gift Article
 Opinions about Canada
 HAND CURATED
 * Opinion | No, Ontario is not ‘privatizing’ Canadian health care
 February 2, 2023

 Opinion | No, Ontario is not ‘privatizing’ Canadian health care
 February 2, 2023
 * Opinion | The wrong way to fix Ontario’s health-care crisis
 January 25, 2023

 Opinion | The wrong way to fix Ontario’s health-care crisis
 January 25, 2023
 * Opinion | Canada is edging toward creating a right to suicide
 January 23, 2023

 Opinion | Canada is edging toward creating a right to suicide
 January 23, 2023
 View 3 more stories
 View more

 TOP STORIES

 The DMV Guide
 Whether you’re a lifelong resident of D.C. or you just moved here, we’ve got you covered.
 Wizards collapse again for a brutal loss to the Kyrie Irving-less Nets

 With young son in tow, Alex Ovechkin relishes a memorable All-Star Game

 Capitals sign winger Sonny Milano to three-year, $5.7 million extension

 Try a different topic
 Sign in or create a free account to save your preferences
 Company
 * About The Post
 * Newsroom Policies & Standards
 * Diversity and Inclusion
 * Careers
 * Media & Community Relations
 * WP Creative Group
 * Accessibility Statement
 Get The Post
 * 
 * 
 * Gift Subscriptions
 * Mobile & Apps
 * Newsletters & Alerts
 * Washington Post Live
 * Reprints & Permissions
 * Post Store
 * Books & E-Books
 * Newspaper in Education
 * Print Archives (Subscribers Only)
 * Today’s Paper
 * Public Notices
 Contact Us
 * Contact the Newsroom
 * Contact Customer Care
 * Contact the Opinions team
 * Advertise
 * Licensing & Syndication
 * Request a Correction
 * Send a News Tip
 * Report a Vulnerability
 Terms of Use
 * Digital Products Terms of Sale
 * Print Products Terms of Sale
 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookie Settings
 * Submissions & Discussion Policy
 * RSS Terms of Service
 * Ad Choices
 washingtonpost.com © 1996-2023 The Washington Post
 * washingtonpost.com
 * © 1996-2023 The Washington Post
 * About The Post
 * Contact the Newsroom
 * Contact Customer Care
 * Request a Correction
 * Send a News Tip
 * Report a Vulnerability
 * Download the Washington Post App
 * Policies & Standards
 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookie Settings
 * Print Products Terms of Sale
 * Digital Products Terms of Sale
 * Submissions & Discussion Policy
 * RSS Terms of Service
 * Ad Choices
Neither Canada nor the United States is in the best political health these days, but the symptoms plaguing each country run in sharply different directions. If excessive division is preventing Americans from getting much done, too much consensus in Canada makes doing the wrong things too easy. Though it’s popular to blame “culture” for any political divergences between the two countries, there are at least three prominent structural variables citizens on both sides of the border should be aware of.   1. It’s easier to get elected in Canada — even if you’re unpopular  In both Canada and the United States, politicians can get elected without a majority of the popular vote — either via a narrow plurality in a three-or-more person race, or through the convolutions of the electoral college or parliamentary system, which prioritize representation for states or provinces over the national vote. In Canada, however, an entrenched three-party-plus system makes politicians elected with very low levels of popularity more norm than exception. Justin Trudeau holds the dubious distinction of being Canada’s most unpopular prime minister by vote share, elected three times with his party receiving less than 40 percent of the popular vote. Almost every provincial government currently serving has been elected with under 50 percent of the popular vote as well.   Follow J.J. McCullough's opinionsFollow  Americans have gotten used to the phenomena of presidents who fail to win a popular majority. Yet the U.S. two-party system still all but guarantees even unpopular presidents win comparatively large percentages of the electorate. Former president Donald Trump lost the presidency in 2020 with a higher percentage of the popular vote than any successful Canadian prime minister has won in nearly 40 years. American governors are almost always elected with majorities. American parties accordingly remain far more obsessed with cobbling together majoritarian blocs than their Canadian counterparts. The aftermath of Democrat losses in Virginia, coupled with declining numbers for President Biden, has seen many liberals anxiously worried that their party’s delicate center-left coalition may not be big enough. One hears this sort of thing far less in Canada, where even a party disliked by more than 60 percent of the country or province can still easily win and wield tremendous political power — albeit during a reign which will almost certainly be marked by consistently underwater approval ratings.  2. Canadian political parties are much more powerful  A source of ongoing drama in the United States has been incessant wheeling and dealing over the fate of Biden’s domestic agenda in the Senate, where two centrist Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), have been leveraging their votes to extract concessions from an administration more progressive than themselves. Such maverick lawmakers can exist in the United States because U.S. political parties are weak and non-hierarchical. In Canada, by contrast, political parties are extraordinarily hierarchical and free-voting lawmakers are virtually unknown — even the most “rebellious” member of parliament still votes with his party leadership 96.6 percent of the time. And why wouldn’t they? Party leaders can expel rebels from the party and deny their ability to run under the party name. This has made Canada’s rubber-stamp parliament a vastly less interesting institution than the U.S. Congress — one of many reasons Canadian political junkies often prefer to follow U.S. politics. But it also makes governing much easier for prime ministers than presidents, with significant consequences for who accomplishes more — for good or ill.  3. Canadians vote less than Americans  Both U.S. parties are waging high profile battles for their “souls,” with outcomes generally settled through party primaries. Millions of ordinary Americans vote in these candidate-nominating elections, which are run by the state. Canadian candidates, by contrast, are picked by extremely small numbers of fee-paying party “members” through intraparty procedures that remain nonstandardized and opaque. Last year, just 175,000 Conservative Party members (about 0.45 percent of Canada) elected Erin O’Toole their prime ministerial candidate — a number smaller than those who voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire alone. American democratic reform advocates, such as Andrew Yang, often argue democracy in the United States will only improve when primaries become more central to the American political process. Increasingly popular “jungle primaries” basically seek to eliminate partisan gatekeeping of general election candidates altogether by allowing multiple self-identified Democrats and Republicans to run against each other simultaneously. No one promotes anything like this in Canada, where the political culture instead revolves around assumptions party bosses should be held personally accountable for every politician nominated under “their” banner — further incentivizing conformist, unambitious candidates. Which system sounds better? To some extent, everyone wants a government that gives voters maximum control over politicians — but they also tend to want a system in which it’s easy for their side to win, some ideas are never entertained, and leaders (they like) can govern without restraint. No one democracy can provide all these things, however, and Canada and the United States illustrate the consequences of the trade-offs.      Opinion|No, Ontario is not ‘privatizing’ Canadian health care       Opinion|No, Ontario is not ‘privatizing’ Canadian health care       Opinion| The wrong way to fix Ontario’s health-care crisis       Opinion| The wrong way to fix Ontario’s health-care crisis       Opinion|Canada is edging toward creating a right to suicide        Opinion|Canada is edging toward creating a right to suicide
Opinion | What sets Canadian and U.S. politics apart? Three critical differences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/29/canada-united-states-political-systems-differences/
https://people.com/politics/matthew-mcconaughey-announces-he-will-not-run-for-texas-governor-our-politics-needs-new-purpose/
Matthew McConaughey Announces He Will Not Run for Texas Governor: 'Our Politics Needs New Purpose'
2021-11-28
Gabrielle Duncan
<div><div><p> <a href="https://people.com/tag/matthew-mcconaughey">Matthew McConaughey</a> announced that he has no immediate plans for a future in politics in a video message shared on Sunday.
</p>
<p> The Oscar winner, 52, shut the door on a <a href="https://twitter.com/McConaughey/status/1465110042491817988">potential bid for governor of Texas</a> in 2022 as he acknowledged his time spent exploring, learning and listening over the past two years while considering a career in public office.
</p>
<p> "As a simple kid born in the little town of Uvalde, Texas, it never occurred to me that I would one day be considered for political leadership," McConaughey said. "It's a humbling and inspiring path to ponder. It's also a path that I'm choosing not to take at this moment."
</p>
<p> <strong>For more on Matthew McConaughey and other top stories, listen below to <a href="https://megaphone.link/HSW1065075894">our daily podcast on PEOPLE Every Day</a>.</strong>
</p>
<p> The actor also noted that he's been studying both American and Texas politics. "What have I learned? A lot," he said. "That we have some problems we need to fix. That our politics needs new purpose. That we have divides that need healing. That we need more trust in our lives."
</p>
<p> "I've learned that freedom comes with responsibility, and that great leaders serve," he continued. "Whether a politician, a CEO, star quarterback, a mother, father, husband, wife, brother, friend, mentor or teacher, we lead by serving each other. We lead through our service. What is service? Service is taking on responsibility today, so we can have more freedom tomorrow. Service is making the better choice for you and for me."
</p>
<p> Instead of running for Texas governor, McConaughey explained that he will continue to support entrepreneurs, businesses and foundations that are "creating pathways for people to succeed, organizations that have a mission to serve and build trust while also generating prosperity."
</p>
<p> "That's the American dream," he added. "And politicians, the good ones can help us get to where we need to go, yeah. But let's be clear, they can't do anything for us unless we choose to do for ourselves."
</p>
<figure>
<figcaption> 
</figcaption></figure>
<p> McConaughey previously addressed speculation about his plans to run for Texas governor during an appearance on <em><a href="https://twitter.com/FallonTonight/status/1373123587549368320">The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon</a></em> in March. "It's something I'm giving consideration. Absolutely," he said at the time. "What an honorable thing to even be able to consider."
</p>
<p> Several months later, he addressed the "challenging" nature of <a href="https://people.com/movies/matthew-mcconaughey-talks-potential-future-in-politics-wants-to-build-something-that-can-last/">entering the world of politics</a> on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rtsHNQeqAA"><em>The Carlos Watson Show</em></a>.
</p>
<p> "I'm not interested in going and putting a bunch of Band-Aids on that are going to be ripped off as soon as I'm out, I'm interested in building something that can last and I'm measuring what category that is, I don't know if that's politics," he said. "That whole embassy of politics has some redefining of its purpose."
</p>
<p> When asked how he would feel about going up against an opponent, the <em>Dallas Buyers Club </em>star again emphasized the need for enacting lasting change that goes beyond a politician's term limit.
</p>
<p> "I trust my core beliefs enough, and my values enough, to feel comfortable listening to an opposing one," McConaughey said. "We try to teach our kids delayed gratification but we don't like to think about further than tomorrow, we need immediate results."
</p>
<p> <strong><em>Never miss a story — sign up for</em></strong><a href="https://forms.dotdashmeredith.com/people-weekly"><strong><em> </em>PEOPLE<em>'s free weekly newsletter</em></strong></a><strong><em> to get the biggest news of the week delivered to your inbox every Friday.</em></strong>
</p>
<p> Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will run for a third term in Texas in 2022, while Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke <a href="https://people.com/politics/beto-orourke-announces-2022-campaign-for-texas-governor/">launched his gubernatorial campaign</a> earlier this month.
</p>
<p> In an earlier interview with PEOPLE, O'Rourke, 49, alluded to a potential bid, saying, "One way or the other, I'm in for the distance for Texas. That might be as a candidate. But it might also be as a volunteer."
</p>
<p> O'Rourke — who toured in a punk band in college — served three terms in the House of Representatives before narrowly losing a high-profile Senate race in 2018 against Sen. Ted Cruz. Though he lost the race, his name recognition grew, and he launched a short-lived presidential bid in 2020.
</p>
<p> Since his short-lived White House bid, O'Rourke has focused much of his energy on voting rights, teaching courses at the University of Texas on the subject and acting as a central figure pushing back against Republican efforts to change the state's voting laws over the summer.
</p></div></div>||||I||||​
Skip to content
 PEOPLE
 * Search
 Please fill out this field.
 * Magazine
 + Subscribe
 + Manage Your Subscription
 + Give a Gift Subscription
 + Get Help
 * Newsletters
 * Sweepstakes
 * Subscribe
 Search
 Please fill out this field.
 * News
 News
 + Crime
 + Human Interest
 + Politics
 * Entertainment
 Entertainment
 + Celebrity
 + TV
 + Movies
 + Music
 + Country
 + Awards
 + Sports
 + Theater
 + Books
 * Royals
 * Lifestyle
 Lifestyle
 + Style
 + Fashion
 + Beauty
 + Parents
 + Weddings
 + Home
 + Health
 + Food
 + Travel
 + Pets
 + Tech
 * People’s 50th
 * Shopping
 Shopping
 + People Tested
 + All Shopping
 * Subscribe
 * Magazine
 Magazine
 + Subscribe
 + Manage Your Subscription
 + Give a Gift Subscription
 + Get Help
 * Newsletters
 * Sweepstakes
 Follow Us
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * News
 + Crime
 + Human Interest
 + Politics
 * Entertainment
 + Celebrity
 + TV
 + Movies
 + Music
 + Country
 + Awards
 + Sports
 + Theater
 + Books
 * Royals
 * Lifestyle
 + Style
 + Beauty
 + Fashion
 + Parents
 + Weddings
 + Home
 + Health
 + Travel
 + Pets
 + Food
 + Tech
 * People's 50th
 * Shopping
 + People Tested
 Subscribe
 * Politics

 Matthew McConaughey Announces He Will Not Run for Texas Governor: 'Our Politics Needs New Purpose'

 The Oscar winner shut the door on a potential bid for governor of Texas in 2022 as he acknowledged his time spent exploring a career in public office over the past two years

 By
 Gabrielle Duncan
 Gabrielle Duncan

 Associate Weekend/Evenings Editor, PEOPLE

 People Editorial Guidelines
 Published on November 28, 2021 10:12PM EST
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

 Photo: Dan HImbrechts/Shutterstock

 Matthew McConaughey announced that he has no immediate plans for a future in politics in a video message shared on Sunday.

 The Oscar winner, 52, shut the door on a potential bid for governor of Texas in 2022 as he acknowledged his time spent exploring, learning and listening over the past two years while considering a career in public office.

 "As a simple kid born in the little town of Uvalde, Texas, it never occurred to me that I would one day be considered for political leadership," McConaughey said. "It's a humbling and inspiring path to ponder. It's also a path that I'm choosing not to take at this moment."

 For more on Matthew McConaughey and other top stories, listen below to our daily podcast on PEOPLE Every Day.

 The actor also noted that he's been studying both American and Texas politics. "What have I learned? A lot," he said. "That we have some problems we need to fix. That our politics needs new purpose. That we have divides that need healing. That we need more trust in our lives."

 Matthew McConaughey Doesn't Think Beto O'Rourke Threw 'Shade': 'He Called Me a Good Man'

 "I've learned that freedom comes with responsibility, and that great leaders serve," he continued. "Whether a politician, a CEO, star quarterback, a mother, father, husband, wife, brother, friend, mentor or teacher, we lead by serving each other. We lead through our service. What is service? Service is taking on responsibility today, so we can have more freedom tomorrow. Service is making the better choice for you and for me."

 Instead of running for Texas governor, McConaughey explained that he will continue to support entrepreneurs, businesses and foundations that are "creating pathways for people to succeed, organizations that have a mission to serve and build trust while also generating prosperity."

 "That's the American dream," he added. "And politicians, the good ones can help us get to where we need to go, yeah. But let's be clear, they can't do anything for us unless we choose to do for ourselves."

 Gary Miller/Getty

 Matthew McConaughey Says America Is 'Going Through Puberty' in Fourth of July Speech

 McConaughey previously addressed speculation about his plans to run for Texas governor during an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon in March. "It's something I'm giving consideration. Absolutely," he said at the time. "What an honorable thing to even be able to consider."

 Several months later, he addressed the "challenging" nature of entering the world of politics on The Carlos Watson Show.

 "I'm not interested in going and putting a bunch of Band-Aids on that are going to be ripped off as soon as I'm out, I'm interested in building something that can last and I'm measuring what category that is, I don't know if that's politics," he said. "That whole embassy of politics has some redefining of its purpose."

 When asked how he would feel about going up against an opponent, the Dallas Buyers Club star again emphasized the need for enacting lasting change that goes beyond a politician's term limit.

 "I trust my core beliefs enough, and my values enough, to feel comfortable listening to an opposing one," McConaughey said. "We try to teach our kids delayed gratification but we don't like to think about further than tomorrow, we need immediate results."

 Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free weekly newsletter to get the biggest news of the week delivered to your inbox every Friday.

 Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will run for a third term in Texas in 2022, while Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke launched his gubernatorial campaign earlier this month.

 In an earlier interview with PEOPLE, O'Rourke, 49, alluded to a potential bid, saying, "One way or the other, I'm in for the distance for Texas. That might be as a candidate. But it might also be as a volunteer."

 O'Rourke — who toured in a punk band in college — served three terms in the House of Representatives before narrowly losing a high-profile Senate race in 2018 against Sen. Ted Cruz. Though he lost the race, his name recognition grew, and he launched a short-lived presidential bid in 2020.

 Since his short-lived White House bid, O'Rourke has focused much of his energy on voting rights, teaching courses at the University of Texas on the subject and acting as a central figure pushing back against Republican efforts to change the state's voting laws over the summer.

 Related Articles

 All the Stars Attending the 2024 White House Correspondents' Dinner, Hosted by Colin Jost
 Poppy Harlow Announces Departure from CNN, Says She Remains Network's 'Biggest Fan'
 Watch the Funniest Roasts from the 2024 White House Correspondents' Dinner — Including One About Taylor Swift
 Vice President Kamala Harris Tells Drew Barrymore 'I Have My Mother's Laugh'
 Kim Kardashian Returns to the White House to Discuss Criminal Justice Reform with Vice President Kamala Harris
 Kristi Noem Doubles Down on Killing Her ‘Less than Worthless’ Hunting Puppy: ‘I Decided What I Did’
 South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Shot and Killed Her Puppy, the Trump VP Candidate Reveals in New Book
 George W. Bush ‘Crashed’ into a Garage, Jenna Bush Hager Recalls, After Laura Bush Gave Him Tough Love
 Why NBC Didn't Want Ivanka Trump to Replace Her Father on The Apprentice , According to New Book
 Jenna Bush Hager Says George W. Bush Is 'Doing Great' as She Recalls How They Spent the Last Eclipse (Exclusive)
 Melania Trump's 53rd Birthday May Be 'Difficult,' Source Says, as She Continues Grieving Late Mother (Exclusive)
 Matthew McConaughey and Wife Camila Alves Make Rare Red Carpet Appearance with Their 3 Kids
 Texas Mayor Receives Package Containing Noose and Threatening Letter amid Reelection Campaign
 RFK Jr.’s Former Colleagues Call on Him to Drop Out of Presidential Race: 'Election Spoiler'
 Publisher David Pecker Testifies About Trump Team's Alleged Role in Burying Stories During 2016 Election
 See All the Celebrities Arriving at the 2024 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
 PEOPLE
 Newsletters

 Follow Us

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * News
 * Entertainment
 * Royals
 * Lifestyle
 * StyleWatch
 * Shopping
 * About Us
 * PEOPLE Tested
 * Editorial Policy
 * Careers
 * Privacy Policy
 * Contact Us
 * Terms of Service
 * Advertise
 * Your Privacy Choices
 PEOPLE is part of the Dotdash Meredith publishing family.
 Newsletter Sign Up
 Newsletter Sign Up
 By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
 Cookies Settings Accept All Cookies
Matthew McConaughey announced that he has no immediate plans for a future in politics in a video message shared on Sunday.
 The Oscar winner, 52, shut the door on a potential bid for governor of Texas in 2022 as he acknowledged his time spent exploring, learning and listening over the past two years while considering a career in public office.
 "As a simple kid born in the little town of Uvalde, Texas, it never occurred to me that I would one day be considered for political leadership," McConaughey said. "It's a humbling and inspiring path to ponder. It's also a path that I'm choosing not to take at this moment."
 For more on Matthew McConaughey and other top stories, listen below to our daily podcast on PEOPLE Every Day.
 The actor also noted that he's been studying both American and Texas politics. "What have I learned? A lot," he said. "That we have some problems we need to fix. That our politics needs new purpose. That we have divides that need healing. That we need more trust in our lives."
 "I've learned that freedom comes with responsibility, and that great leaders serve," he continued. "Whether a politician, a CEO, star quarterback, a mother, father, husband, wife, brother, friend, mentor or teacher, we lead by serving each other. We lead through our service. What is service? Service is taking on responsibility today, so we can have more freedom tomorrow. Service is making the better choice for you and for me."
 Instead of running for Texas governor, McConaughey explained that he will continue to support entrepreneurs, businesses and foundations that are "creating pathways for people to succeed, organizations that have a mission to serve and build trust while also generating prosperity."
 "That's the American dream," he added. "And politicians, the good ones can help us get to where we need to go, yeah. But let's be clear, they can't do anything for us unless we choose to do for ourselves."
 
 
 McConaughey previously addressed speculation about his plans to run for Texas governor during an appearance on  The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon  in March. "It's something I'm giving consideration. Absolutely," he said at the time. "What an honorable thing to even be able to consider."
 Several months later, he addressed the "challenging" nature of entering the world of politics on  The Carlos Watson Show .
 "I'm not interested in going and putting a bunch of Band-Aids on that are going to be ripped off as soon as I'm out, I'm interested in building something that can last and I'm measuring what category that is, I don't know if that's politics," he said. "That whole embassy of politics has some redefining of its purpose."
 When asked how he would feel about going up against an opponent, the Dallas Buyers Club star again emphasized the need for enacting lasting change that goes beyond a politician's term limit.
 "I trust my core beliefs enough, and my values enough, to feel comfortable listening to an opposing one," McConaughey said. "We try to teach our kids delayed gratification but we don't like to think about further than tomorrow, we need immediate results."
  Never miss a story — sign up for     PEOPLE's free weekly newsletter     to get the biggest news of the week delivered to your inbox every Friday. 
 Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will run for a third term in Texas in 2022, while Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke launched his gubernatorial campaign earlier this month.
 In an earlier interview with PEOPLE, O'Rourke, 49, alluded to a potential bid, saying, "One way or the other, I'm in for the distance for Texas. That might be as a candidate. But it might also be as a volunteer."
 O'Rourke — who toured in a punk band in college — served three terms in the House of Representatives before narrowly losing a high-profile Senate race in 2018 against Sen. Ted Cruz. Though he lost the race, his name recognition grew, and he launched a short-lived presidential bid in 2020.
 Since his short-lived White House bid, O'Rourke has focused much of his energy on voting rights, teaching courses at the University of Texas on the subject and acting as a central figure pushing back against Republican efforts to change the state's voting laws over the summer.
Matthew McConaughey Announces He Will Not Run for Texas Governor: 'Our Politics Needs New Purpose'
https://people.com/politics/matthew-mcconaughey-announces-he-will-not-run-for-texas-governor-our-politics-needs-new-purpose/