They’re not mad that Obama said there are religiously conservative Latinos who vote Republican (though that’s not why Trump improved his vote share among Latinos.) They’re mad because Obama called Trump racist, a description that logically extends to the people who voted for him.
In other words the thing they’re actually mad about is white people being called racist, which they find outrageous and offensive, especially from the black former president who should shut up and be grateful. Trump’s racism though, is fine.
*not *necessarily* why Trump improved his Latino vote share, I think it’s not fully clear why yet, but we’ll find out.
The Trump presidency began with him demanding the first black president show his papers, and it ends with his campaign demanding hundreds of thousands of black votes across multiple states be invalidated. The ship has sailed on “is Trump racist.” Sailed on Trumpists too.
“Sometimes voters of color prioritize other issues over racism” is the story of how the Democratic Party became what it is today so let’s be a little less precious about this entire conversation.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Serwer 🍝

Adam Serwer 🍝 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdamSerwer

9 Sep
So there are LOTS of differences between the U.S. after the Civil War and right now, as Adam says (and my argument is not that this is a 1:1 comparison, but that we are potentially at a similar crossroads in terms of potential for progress)
But I actually want to respond by focusing on something that is maybe underappreciated about how little things had changed in the immediate aftermath, politically. In 1868, the Dems run Horatio Seymour on their classic themes of white supremacy and economic populism.
Most people focus on Francis Blair, his virulently racist running mate, but Seymour's convention speech is interesting to me because of its combining of certain...familiar themes. (Note he considers enfranchisement of black men racist...against white people!)
Read 10 tweets
4 Sep
A couple of tells of a bad faith argument: one is you don’t name the person you’re arguing with, another is that you falsely paraphrase the argument because quoting it accurately would refute the point being made.
The piece actually argues that Farrakhan is a fringe figure who retains a certain amount of support despite his bigotry because of NOI’s work among particularly impoverished communities, and because his white critics lack the standing to discredit him.
I could not be clearer about my enmity for Farrakhan; that’s not the same as not understanding the sources of his continuing relevance. If you don’t want to understand it that’s fine but don’t pretend I something I didn’t say.
Read 5 tweets
15 Apr
I think some of you are overstating the political brilliance of Trump putting his name on too-small stimulus checks that are gonna arrive late, or be direct deposited and possibly clawed back by banks, and be insufficient to sustain people through worsening economic conditions.
If the economy recovers in time, Trump may get a lot of credit. If it doesn’t, whatever measures he pursued are likely to seem insufficient. Idk what will happen in November but people know who the incumbent is and crude branding isn’t gonna make much of a difference.
Not saying this will be Trump's fate, but Hoover spent the latter days of 1932 fuming that Americans weren't more grateful for all he had done and lamenting that they didn't understand economics and freedom as well as he did
Read 4 tweets
5 Apr
This doesn’t even make sense on its own terms, unless you were going out of your way to avoid finding any fault with how the Trump administration handled this because it’s all related.
This isn’t even “not playing politics.” It’s playing politics by avoiding questions that are of obvious public interest because you want to avoid the impression you’d do anything to oppose the president mismanaging a plague and economic collapse.
Even IF Trump was very popular right now and opposing him was bad politics, it would still be an abdication of their duties to the public to say, “we’re not interested in finding out why all these people are dying and losing their jobs.” It’s both politicizing and useless.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!