New York Times columnist David Brooks was roasted on Twitter after he claimed that candidates for national office face a harder time if they are from an urban area on either coast.
Brooks theorized that it’s more difficult for a candidate to run for national office if they’re from California or New York because those areas are not representative of the rest of the country.
“It’s hard to run for national office from California or New York. The urban parts of those states are so unrepresentative you don’t understand what you’re about to face,” he tweeted on Thursday and included a link to a New York Times story about the downfall of California Sen. Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign’s downfall.
Many on social media were quick to point out fallacies in Brooks’s theory: mainly that President Trump long lived in New York before recently changing his residence to Florida while he ran against Hillary Clinton, who served as New York senator from 2001-2009.
1) California and New York are a lot more representative of the United States than many states (say, Iowa or New Hampshire). The United States is primarily an urban country and a fairly diverse one.
2) The most recent presidential election featured two candidates from…New York. https://t.co/diVpAGYiCr— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 29, 2019
*sees David Brooks trending*
Me: pic.twitter.com/jZukB3kBR7
— John Lee Brougher (@johnbrougher) November 29, 2019
David Brooks understands the real america because he’s talked to taxi drivers and right wing think tank grifters. https://t.co/DBKavN4Wpq
— Noah Berlatsky (@nberlat) November 29, 2019
1. Sees David Brooks is trending.
2. Is disappointed.— Conner Habib (@ConnerHabib) November 29, 2019
David Brooks has a $2 million home on Capitol Hill https://t.co/K7Eb3Tt0tT
— Jonathan M. Katz✍? (@KatzOnEarth) November 29, 2019
