Connect with us

Commentary

COMMENTARY: Black Media Needs to do their Jobs

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The Black vote was particularly decisive in three gubernatorial races: Florida, Georgia, and Maryland. Each of these races had three extremely credible, impressive Black Democrat candidates facing white Republicans.

Published

on

By Raynard Jackson, NNPA Newswire Contributor

As I reflected on the year in politics from 2018, it dawned on me that the most under reported story of last year was the Black vote; and not for the reasons you might think.

According to Pew Research, “Blacks voted [in the 2018 elections] overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).

It is a well-known axiom in politics that a Democrat candidate MUST get north of 90% of the Black vote to win an election, especially in a state-wide race. Anything less, that Democrat candidate risks losing his race.

Similarly, if a Republican gets north of 15% of the Black vote, he has a great chance of winning his election.

This is why I find it so bizarre that the Republican Party REFUSES to spend the time, money and effort to engage with the Black community in any meaningful, sustained way. More about this in a future column.

The Black vote was particularly decisive in three gubernatorial races: Florida, Georgia, and Maryland. Each of these races had three extremely credible, impressive Black Democrat candidates facing white Republicans.

In Florida’s governors’ race, former congressman, Ron DeSantis got 14% of the Black vote; in Georgia, former secretary of state, Brian Kemp got 16% of the Black vote; and in Maryland, incumbent governor, Larry Hogan got 30% of the Black vote.

This is proof positive that the above axiom is indeed a very accurate predictor of election outcomes more than any polling data.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I served as a senior advisor to Ron DeSantis during his race for governor, so I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of the Black vote in this race.

After he became our party’s nominee for governor, DeSantis called me and asked me to come to Florida and help him secure the Black vote. He empowered me to accomplish the mission, gave me the resources that I needed, and then got the hell out of my way and let me do my thing!

Of the 14% of the Black vote we received, we received 18% of the Black female vote and 9% of the Black male vote. The issues that drove this 14% was entrepreneurship and school choice/vouchers.

The Democrat nominee, Andrew Gillum, vowed to raise taxes on businesses and eliminate a voucher program that overwhelmingly benefited poor Blacks.

The question that I have for the media, especially the Black media is how do you explain the fact that these three Black candidates all got well under 90% of the Black vote?

I have not seen one media story that examined this phenomenon. Why? Because the media cannot and will not accept the fact that a significant percentage of the Black vote supported a Republican candidate because in a liberal’s mind, they can’t believe a Black person would actually say, by their vote, that they agree with this Republican candidate’s ideological views.

In a liberal’s mind, it is inconceivable that a Black person can be pro-life, support smaller government, actually wants lower taxes, supports the removal of those in the country illegally, and believes in school choice and vouchers, etc.

I expect white media to ignore this story, but I am kind of surprised that Black media has not thoroughly examined why the three candidates got well under 90% of the Black vote.

Many in the Black media are radical liberals, like Roland Martin, Joy Reid, Tamron Hall, Jason Johnson, Lauren Burke, Joe Madison, etc. They don’t want to examine this story because they know the outcome; the examination will prove that Blacks are not the liberals that they and the white media want the public to believe.

Gillum, Abrams, Jealous, all were radical liberal candidates; putting illegals before American citizens, promoting a radical homosexual agenda, and wanting to raise taxes on those who are successful. That is why each of them lost.

You had three sharp candidates, all 45 or younger, great rhetorical skills, and all very likable; and yet all three got their butts kicked because enough Blacks said we don’t agree with your policy positions. I have heard liberals attempt to dismiss these loses because of “racism” and “voter suppression.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. They lost because the Republican candidates received more votes than them. Period!!!

I hope in this new year that Black media will finally live up to its journalistic mission and actually give an honest examination of why these three Black candidates received well under 90% of the Black vote in three states that had significant numbers of Black voters.

And I hope this examination will include the fact that enough Blacks supported the Republican candidate because they agreed with their policy positions as opposed to what the Democrat alternative was offering.

This indeed was the most under reported political story of 2018.

Raynard Jackson is founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur. For more information about BAFBF, visit www.bafbf.org. You can follow Raynard on Twitter @Raynard1223.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BlackPressUSA.com or the National Newspaper Publishers Association.

Continue Reading
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Pingback: R. Kelly Investigation Underway After Series | journal-isms.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Commentary

Harris Dominates First Presidential Debate as Trump Struggles to Defend Record

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Vice President Kamala Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class. “I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their first presidential debate Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Photo: Screen capture from ABC News feed of the debate.
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their first presidential debate Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Photo: Screen capture from ABC News feed of the debate.

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

Vice President Kamala Harris decisively took control of the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, delivering a performance that put Trump on the defensive for much of the evening. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News kept a tight handle on the debate, significantly improving from CNN’s June handling of Trump and President Joe Biden.

The debate began with a surprise as Harris approached Trump to shake his hand and introduced herself as “Kamala Harris,” an unusual move that set the tone for the night. Trump’s trademark scowl stayed in place throughout the debate, as Harris pressed him on his legal woes and diminished his record. Displaying her prosecutorial skills, Harris consistently turned the conversation toward Trump’s convictions, his business fraud case, and his role in the January 6 insurrection.

Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class.

“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Trump, by contrast, criticized the Biden-Harris economy, calling it “the worst period of time” he had seen. He defended his tariff policies and took aim at Harris, labeling her a “Marxist” while also accusing her of copying his economic policies. “I was going to send her a MAGA hat,” Trump quipped.

Abortion rights were another major focus of the night. Trump, when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban, declined to answer directly, stating, “I won’t have to,” and arguing that the end of Roe v. Wade had satisfied everyone. Harris, in turn, vowed to restore Roe’s protections through federal legislation if elected.

“I pledge to you: when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” she said.

As the debate went on, Trump repeated several conspiracy theories, including a claim that migrants were eating pets in U.S. cities, which Muir quickly fact-checked. Trump doubled down, citing “people on television” as his source. Harris largely let Trump’s more outlandish statements pass, opting to stay on policy while allowing the moderators to address his factually inaccurate remarks.

In one of the most heated moments, Harris invited viewers to attend a Trump rally for themselves, commenting, “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter and windmills causing cancer. You’ll notice people start leaving his rallies early—out of exhaustion and boredom.”

Trump, visibly irritated, retorted that he holds “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics,” but the debate soon returned to more substantive issues like crime and inflation.

The night clearly contrasted Biden’s earlier debate with Trump, as Harris managed to keep Trump on the defensive. Trump continued to fixate on conspiracy theories and past grievances, while Harris stayed focused on presenting her vision for the future.

With fewer than 60 days until the election, the debate sets the tone for what will likely be a hard-fought campaign. As the debate ended, Harris closed with a message to the American people: “This is about who we are as a country. The choice is clear—between chaos and leadership, fear and hope.”

Continue Reading

Commentary

Opinion: In First Presidential Debate, Harris Exposes Trump’s Inadequacies

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States. If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job. She belongs in the White House.

Published

on

Screenshot from Presidential Debate.
Screenshot from Presidential Debate.

By Emil Guillermo

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States.

If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job.

She belongs in the White House.

Harris not only bested Donald Trump in arguing the facts; she showed how totally inadequate Trump is to again be our country’s Commander-in-Chief.

Harris deftly made her case on issue after issue, while baiting and manipulating Trump on the economy, on abortion, and on immigration.

Imagine how Putin and other world leaders play Trump. Harris exposed Trump for all to see. It wasn’t exactly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. It was more like “the twice impeached, convicted felon on 34 counts” has no business running for president. Trump is unfit mentally for the job, if not unfit morally.

It must have been a disappointment for deep MAGA to see their candidate so incapable of holding his own against Harris. At one point, she had him defending the crowd size at his rallies after she said people were leaving because he was boring.

And then instead of real policies that impact our lives, the former president spoke passionately about… his crowd size.

When that happened, I think everyone could see: Harris ate his lunch.

Going into the debate, the consensus in this tight race was that it was a virtual tie with Trump one point ahead.

But after their first meeting ever in a head-to-head-match up, CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning the debate well beyond any margin of error, 63 percent to 37 percent.

There’s more distance between the two than previously understood. The debate exposed that.

TRUMP’S LIES

At the beginning of the week, I said the only way Trump could win the debate was if he “played nice.”

But the bully just couldn’t do it.

Acting presidential was just one lie Trump couldn’t pull off in another debate night mired in Trump lies.

Did his administration really do “a phenomenal job in the pandemic” when over a million Americans are dead? Is Kamala Harris “a Marxist and everybody knows it”? And what about those cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, where every local official confirmed to news organizations that the story was false. There was even a lie on that Trump lie, when the former president said the immigrants were eating cats AND dogs. No, it’s just one lie. Just cats is enough.

And all that was just a fraction of the lies Trump told in the 90-minute debate.

Still, even with all that, I wouldn’t say Kamala Harris “whooped” Donald Trump.

It was more like general domination.

In fact, she had him at “Kamala Harris.”

When Trump seemed to dismiss the possibility of an opening handshake, Harris forced the issue. She walked toward Trump’s podium, reached out her hand, and introduced herself by name.

That gesture put Trump on the defensive all night.

About the Author

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. See his micro talkshow on YouTube.com/@emilamok1

Continue Reading

Activism

‘Respect Our Vote’ Mass Meeting Rejects Oakland, Alameda County Recalls

The mass meeting, attended mostly by members of local Asian American communities, was held in a large banquet room in a Chinese restaurant in Alameda. The Respect Our Vote (ROV) coalition, consisting of concerned community members and groups, is organizing meetings in Oakland and around Alameda County leading up to the November election.

Published

on

Some of the leaders who spoke at the Respect Our Vote – No Recalls!” mass meeting were (left to right): Elaine Peng, Mariano Contreras, Pastor Servant B.K. Woodson, and Stewart Chen. Photo by Ken Epstein.
Some of the leaders who spoke at the Respect Our Vote – No Recalls!” mass meeting were (left to right): Elaine Peng, Mariano Contreras, Pastor Servant B.K. Woodson, and Stewart Chen. Photo by Ken Epstein.

By Ken Epstein

A recently organized coalition, “Respect Our Vote – No Recalls!,” held a standing-room only mass meeting on Sept. 14, urging residents to vote ‘No’ on the two East Bay recalls funded by conservative billionaires and millionaires with the help of corporate media and instead to support the campaign to protect residents’  democratic right to choose their representatives.

The mass meeting, attended mostly by members of local Asian American communities, was held in a large banquet room in a Chinese restaurant in Alameda.

The Respect Our Vote (ROV) coalition, consisting of concerned community members and groups, is organizing meetings in Oakland and around Alameda County leading up to the November election.

Speaking at the meeting, prominent East Bay leader Stewart Chen said that local leaders, like Alameda County D.A. Pamela Price and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, worked hard to get elected, and our system says they get four years to carry out their policies and campaign promises. But rich people have “broken” that system.

Within two months after they took office, they were facing recalls paid for by billionaires, he said. “(Billionaires’) candidate did not get elected, so they want to change the system.”

“(Our elected leaders) were elected through the process, and the people spoke,” said Chen. “It’s the entire system that the billionaires are trying to (overturn).”

“If a candidate does something wrong or enacts a policy that we do not like, we let it play out, and in four years, we do not have to vote for them.

“The democratic system that we have had in place for a couple of hundred years, it needs our help,” said Chen.

Pastor Servant B.K. Woodson, a leader of the coalition, emphasized the diversity and solidarity needed to defend democracy. “We need each other’s wisdom to make our nation great, to make it safe. We are deliberately African American, English-speaking, Latino American, Spanish-speaking, and all the wonderful dialects in the Asian communities. We want to be together, grow together, and have a good world together.”

Mariano Contreras of the Latino Task Force said that people need to understand what is at stake now.

The recall leaders are connected to conservative forces that will undermine public education, and bilingual education, he said. “The people behind (the recalls) are being used by outside dark money,” he said.  The spokespeople of these recalls are themselves conservatives “who are wearing a mask that says they are progressives.”

In 2017, Oakland passed an ordinance that gave teeth to its “Sanctuary City” policy, which was brought to the City Council and passed because it was supported by progressive members on the council.

“That would not be possible anymore if the progressive alliance – Sheng Thao, Nikki Fortunato Bas, and Carroll Fife – if they are pushed out,” he said.

Elaine Peng, president of Asian Americans for Progressive America, said, “I strongly oppose the recalls of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.”

Citing statistics, she said Alameda County’s murder rate was higher when Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley was in office, before Pamela Price was elected to that position.

“The recall campaign has been misleading the public,” said Peng.

She said Oakland is making progress under Thao. “Crime rates are falling in Oakland,” and the City is building more affordable housing than ever before and is creating more jobs.

Attorney Victor Ochoa said, this recall is “not by accident in Oakland – it is a political strategy.”

“There is a strategy that has been launched nationwide. What we’re seeing is oligarchs, (such as Phillip Dreyfuss from Piedmont), right wingers, conservatives, who can write a check for $400,000 like some of us can write a check for $10.”

“They aligned themselves with so-called moderate forces, but they’re not moderates.  They align themselves with the money, and that’s what we have seen in Oakland.”

Ochoa continued, “You got to put up signs, you’ve got to talk to your neighbors, volunteer whatever hours you can, have a house meeting. That’s the way progressives win.”

Pecolia Manigo of Oakland Rising Action spoke about what it will take to defeat the recalls. “This is the time when you are not only deputized to go out and do outreach, we need to make sure that people actually vote.

“We need everyone to vote not just for the president, but all the way down the ballot to where these questions will be. Remind people to fill out their ballot, and mail it back.”

Former Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who had herself faced a recall attempt, said, “In this recall, they used a lot of money, had paid signature gatherers, and they moved very fast. I talked to many of the people gathering signatures. They didn’t know what was going on. Many of them didn’t live in Oakland. It was just money for them.”

“Sam Singer, the guy who is their spokesperson, is a paid PR guy. He has media ties, so they’ve swamped the media against Sheng,” Quan said.

‘Oakland is… a city that implemented some of the first rent control protections in the country. So, developers and big apartment owners would love to get rid of rent control,” said Quan.

“We also established ranked-choice voting, which allows people with less money to coalesce and win elections,” she said.  “That’s too democratic for people with big money. They would rather have elections the way they were.”

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.