And among the "except" were "people with a college degree".

"Nonwhite" in the poll meant only "black", not Latino or Asian or Native American. In other words, Fox oversimplified the Quinnipiac poll results.

However, the vastly superior AOC built on the mistake instead of correcting it. In effect, she said, "Hey, only conservative white men have college degrees." By which claim she's said she's a conservative white man. Not, I think, where she wanted her implications to lead, but right at the average level of thinking on Twitter. It's good politics, it's good PR. But a glance at the underlying data shows that the Fox blip is sensationalist and the best response would have been to just talk about the data instead of baiting a hook.

The rest of the error--which wasn't mostly Fox's, however remarkable this is (not having actually seen fox since '04 when we had cable removed with prejudice, I'll take others' word for it), is in this case erasing the not-enough-info/don't-know category. So mostly where AOC wasn't "underwater" were cases in which, for example, there was 34% favorable, 29% unfavorable (not underwater!), 36% "don't know/not enough info". Fox was ambiguous in this, most of the "not underwater with most people" categories were of this nature. These were flipped though, so that "not underwater" was (badly) interpreted to mean "favored by"; that's like saying, "If something's not blue, it must be red" and ignoring both the rest of the spectrum and both black and white. Again, Twitter is less ruminations and more ruminants.

The tweet in the OP is not about the content of the story, or about the poll itself. It's only about the headline:

Wonder why she is endorsing Bernie Sanders?? Really makes one scratch head in wonder...so confused...

Ideology reasons are why. I share the same ideology as Bernie Sanders & AOC. I'm also under 34.

I am a female. She isn’t making sense with this post and her endorsement of pres candidate. Ideology, you say? I disagree.

Bernie isn’t only candidate supporting Green New Deal so she has other options than the “older, white male”.

Bernie Sanders is among the most liberal members of the Senate & AOC is among the most liberal members of The House. They have similar foreign policy views like AOC used her primary opponent's Iraq war vote against him.

I care more about policies than whether someone is an old white male or not. This is my dream which is unlikely but I prefer it to Centrist New Democrats is Sanders for 4-8 years or however long he lives followed by AOC. Again this isn't likely but who I prefer based on policies & politician.

Since I don’t share their ideologies. Do you want me to remove it?












Not happening.

When it makes perfect sense why she would endorse him. Same goes for Ilhan Omar & Rashida Talib.

No one asked you to remove the post. It's just there is a huge logical gap between AOC saying that young, female, and non-white voters matter and you saying she should support a candidate who's not an older white male.

There is literally nothing inconsistent about an old white guy while also saying other people matter equally. That criticism mimics the people who say feminists have to hate all men. AOC is arguing from a view of equality among people, not a competition between different demographic segments.

I agree with AOC's tweet pointing out how ridiculous it is to privilege older white men. However, she seems to be doing exactly that by endorsing an older white man for president instead of a woman who has essentially the same platform.

Wow, I can see you're putting a lot of effort into understanding the primary.

FWIW, I'm British, so am not voting in the primary or general election. If I could, I think I'd vote for Warren. But it seems clear to me there's more between those 2 candidates than being male and female.

for everything.

Not about older white men. Her tweet was in March, referencing a tweet by "NumbersMuncher" that is no longer available:

Link to tweet

Well. Gosh. I’m really embarrassed for stopping by this AOC support group and wondering wth?



(Not really)

But I hope you can see that thinking that the media has a bias towards old white men should not mean that someone should never support old white men. This is just basic logic.

Discussing anything with some of the Democrat candidates supporters, is somewhat akin to discussing a situation re: Trump by his supporters.

I have to be honest......sometimes I look at the democrats and I just shake my head. On one hand you have pelosi who is doing a marvelous job. On the other hand, you have the dem party that seems to be having a difficult time mounting an organized effective campaign for our presidential candidate. Every time we seemingly get a candidate dropped, two more jump in to the race. IMO we should have had ONE candidate by now, and the party and every dem voter should be 100% behind that candidate.......(My biggest WTF is Bennett here in Colorado.) I have felt that I would back the candidate that is the most electable. Period. We probably all agree that we may like this candidate, or that candidate, but the reality of the situation we are in, is get a DEM elected.

And Wana, don't you dare express your personal opinion about any candidate....some here will disrespect your opinion as much as if you are a Trump lover.

Now just watch me get hammered for expressing my thinking/opinion. And those that choose to do that, just remember, we have a great group of candidates. (mostly) but we need to, at this crucial point in our countries history, elect our candidate in the very near future, and ALL OTHER candidates immediately get behind THAT candidate......

It really is something how easy it is for so many to get off track from the main goal; winning. But instead of focusing on that, they cannot help themselves. Every bad poll or performance HAS to be because of racism or sexism. It cant be as simple as you just didnt run a good campaign or made too many mistakes.

I may disagree with you on being down to ONE at this point; but definitely by March.

Wouldn't that be supremely vulnerable to spin, media bias, entrenched power, and other forms of influence far less attractive than democracy?

Who gets to say which candidate is the most electable, in your system? Opinion pollsters? Would you also abolish Democratic primaries for other elections, or are they OK?

so NOT what I said or implied, it doesn't even rate a reply.

You want everyone to have dropped out, apart from one candidate, before any of the primaries or caucuses have happened.

I suspect you just weren't thinking what you were saying.

Why is AOCs endorsement being conflated with her observation on the subject of subconscious bias?

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't understand how wanting everyone to be included under the "us" umbrella means that one can't support someone who is old, white, and male when he has the same opinions as oneself.

Maybe I'm just not concerned enough.

She’s pretty consistent on that point. She’s not saying older white men don’t count ... she’s saying everyone else counts as well.

She’s spot on too.

Rec.

And its a shame that she considers 35 yrs old to be "old"

Intentionally misunderstanding her point is being obtuse.

I think she got it right.

I think AOC is another bright future I hope I'm around long enough to see fully developed.

It wasn't about the content of the story, or about the poll itself. It was only about the headline:

every group except women, AAs, and men over 40?

There are far better examples of subconscious bias than this. I don't think belittling the phenomenon with weak examples is helpful.

Her analysis is just dumb. Adding nefarious and conspiratorial meanings into legitimate statistical language is propaganda.

I call bullsh*t. There is no hidden meaning to the statement she quoted. Her translation is meant to divide groups with meaningless accusations. That is right out of the Trump playbook, and the playbook of demagogues everywhere.

But it’s okay if the targets are old, white men? Have we not learned anything?

she's nit picking here, I lose you on criticizing older, white men. This is the group that overwhelmingly supports every nefarious policy spewed from the mouth of the Rethuglican party. The group that makes up the core of IQ45's base. The group that still holds nearly all the economic and political power in this country and is damned determined to hang on to that power even if it means dragging the country into some kind of fascists nightmare. Enough said on my fellow old, white men.

And why is AOC such a lightning rod? She's young, outspoken and right much of the time I guess. Note, I said much of the time. She screws up no more or less than the rest of us. We're all human and I don't agree with anyone on every single point. So what I focus on is the general theme of her service in government. What is she for. What is she against. What is she trying to do overall. Her policy ideas taken in total. To be honest, this old, white man likes most of what he sees. But I don't lock step behind her. Nor, like some here, dislike her because...well....they dislike her. We're Democrats. I didn't' think we were supposed to do mindless following or mindless hating. We left that mostly to our colleagues on the right. Maybe I'm wrong in that.

(and of course AOC knows this, it's a rhetorical device -- an area in which she needs NO help)

but her example of it is a bit weak. Plenty of better examples out there. Got to be careful with that, as many will take a slip and run with it. She probably needs to chat with Hillary Clinton about not giving the mindless haters an angle of attack.

Her response to it drips with sarcasm.

"don't call it bias when you know it's agitprop", but she is shielded from actual need of correction by her deployment of sarcasm, which may have been too subtle for some (especially RWNJs, of course).

Reading through the thread, her tweet seems to have been misunderstood in a variety of ways.

Males have asserted dominance since humankind lived in caves.

That’s a VERY nice long run.

So now, it’s SOMEBODY ELSE’S turn.

I feel the same about all the tax cuts for the wealthy. Wonderful! Sincerely! They got theirs. Good for them! And now, it’s their turn to go to the back of the line, and let somebody else move up and get the breaks and the advantages.

They’ve had a chance to enjoy their tax cuts, and that’s just fine. And now, it’s somebody else’s turn. They’ve had time to enjoy their tax cuts and I hope they got a lot out of it. And now it’s time to balance things out, back off the one-sided bonanza, and raise their rates again so somebody else can step up and enjoy some of those advantages, for a change. Specifically those who’ve been sold a bill o’ goods about the wonders of “trickle-down” (which has never lived up to all those marvelous golden rainbow promises). Now, that group should step up to the front of the line and take THEIR turn first at the banquet table.

And for all those evangelicals out there, Our Lord even talked about it. Something along the lines of “the first shall be last and the last shall be first...”