Josh Kraft is prioritizing winning over Black voters in Boston's mayoral race. Is it working?
Related
:
Advertisement
'This couldn't be a more appropriate place for our campaign to call home,' Kraft said in March at the opening of his campaign HQ. 'This campaign is about making sure that every voice in Boston is heard and valued.'
A first-time candidate up against a savvy incumbent, Kraft believes his narrow path to victory runs directly through Roxbury and Boston's other communities of color, swaths of the city where, Kraft contends, voters feel ignored and let down by Wu.
Wu's campaign firmly rejects that claim and the idea that she doesn't engage with communities of color. The campaign points to the
Advertisement
Kraft's strategy, nonetheless, reflects the campaign's view that the political newcomer can make inroads among Boston's voters of color. Kraft in recent weeks has appeared on at least four radio shows with Black hosts that focus on the Black community, and has frequently sat in pews for Sunday services and joined iftars in neighborhoods such as Dorchester and Mattapan.
His team has recruited people specifically to lead outreach among Boston's Haitian and Cape Verdean residents.
Last month, the Kraft campaign hosted an event in Mattapan featuring a couple dozen of Boston's Haitian residents formally endorsing his candidacy.
Since he launched his challenge to Wu in February, Kraft has argued Wu 'doesn't listen' to residents, and has neglected Black neighborhoods and other communities around the city. And as Kraft's campaign sees it, the connections he developed through his nonprofit work, largely in communities of color, give him an opportunity to capitalize on what they view as Wu's vulnerability in Boston's diverse neighborhoods.
More than two dozen interviews with Black Boston voters, including some civic leaders and political strategists, indicate Kraft will find
at least some
willingness to hear his message in these communities, but he has a lot more work to do before November.
Like any voting bloc, Boston's Black community is incredibly diverse and not at all a monolith.
Some prominent Black leaders, a portion of whom supported Wu in 2021, confirmed they are disillusioned with the mayor's leadership. Other
Black voters told the Globe they still strongly support the mayor, particularly in light of the national political climate. Several others said they could possibly be open to voting for a challenger to Wu, but don't know enough about Kraft's policy positions to decide yet. A couple hadn't even heard of him.
Advertisement
The interviews indicate the dissatisfaction and frustration that Kraft seeks to capitalize on is real.
Several of Wu's policy initiatives have angered some very vocal and influential leaders in Black neighborhoods, including her plan to
Related
:
'I feel like she's kind of failed Black people,' said Priscilla Flint, executive director of the Marcus Anthony Hall Educational Institute, which serves city youth. '[Wu] doesn't listen, and then she makes decisions,' without first soliciting community input. Flint voted for Wu in 2021, but said she's been disappointed in Wu's leadership and, at this point, doesn't plan to back her again. Flint's organization has also received support from Kraft's philanthropic work in the past.
Other prominent civic leaders said the mayor's decision to block the creation of an elected School Committee was a turning point.
During her first mayoral campaign, Wu said she
supported a hybrid, partially elected School Committee, but as mayor she
Advertisement
Many voters who spoke with the Globe also said Wu has been too hasty installing
'[In] conversations that I'm having with many, many people in the Black community, a lot of it comes down to, '[Wu] doesn't show up for us unless she needs something, or she only shows up when it can benefit her,'' said Jacquetta Van Zandt, a senior adviser to the Kraft campaign and host of the show 'Politics and Prosecco.' 'She has made decisions and choices that have conveniently left out Black voices.'
Wu's campaign did not directly comment on the Kraft team's accusations, but in a statement emphasized her nearly 15 years in city government, the
It hasn't been enough for some.
Louis Elisa, president of the Garrison Trotter Neighborhood Association, said he's particularly disappointed in the stalled progress on plans
to overhaul the city's only vocational high school,
and what he sees as minimal improvements to the
Advertisement
He said he did not vote for Wu in 2021, but was pleased that she, both as a city councilor and as a mayoral candidate, showed interest in addressing some issues he deeply cares about, like Madison Park.
But
'there are so many things she said she was going to do that didn't happen,' Elisa said. 'I started off very much in support of her administration doing good things, and she basically squandered that trust and that support by doing things that are totally unrelated to the needs of the community in which I live.'
Other Black voters defended the mayor's record.
Denise Williams, a 53-year-old former certified nursing assistant who lives in Roxbury, said she proudly supports Wu and appreciates how frequently she attends community events. As a mother, she said
'I just pray that she wins,' Williams said. 'I don't like for somebody to say, 'Well, I have Black friends' … No, you have to really be in it to understand what we go through on a daily basis.'
Related
:
Jasen Lambright, a cybersecurity expert and Dorchester resident, said he voted for Wu in 2021 and will likely do so again. As a father of three kids in BPS, he said he still sees room for improvement. But he praised her work on public safety in the city, including progress she made tackling homelessness and the opioid crisis along what some call
Advertisement
'I used to drive by there all the time to drop my kids off [at a youth program] … and I can say it looks markedly different,' Lambright said.
He was also impressed by
'That was phenomenal, I agreed with everything she said,' Lambright said. 'What I like about Mayor Wu is I feel like she gets the overall picture. … I haven't heard why [Kraft] would do a better job.'
Related
:
Antoinette Johnson, a 47-year-old Dorchester resident and morning show host on the Black-owned radio station Spark FM, also said Kraft hasn't articulated
how his leadership would be different than Wu's.
'Instead of him saying, 'This is what I'm doing, this is what I'm doing,' it seems like he's kind of harping on what she's not doing,' Johnson said. She does, however, believe Kraft's efforts to reach Black voters are working. 'He's made himself available in a lot of spaces that we probably wouldn't think that Josh Kraft would be in.'
Kraft recently joined Johnson and her co-hosts on their Spark FM show, and left a good impression, she said. While Johnson said she's supported Wu for years and approves of the job she's done in her first term, she sees Kraft as a strong contender in this year's race.
'In speaking to people in my community, it's probably split down the middle. There's a lot of people who are very, very excited about Mayor Wu running again. ... There are some other people who [think], 'Maybe there could be some change if we give Josh Kraft a chance.''
'It's gonna be a tough race,' Johnson continued, 'but I think it's gonna be a good race, and I think that both of them have the opportunity to prove themselves.'
Niki Griswold can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iris Reeves, former Baltimore City councilmember, dies
Iris Reeves, who served in the Baltimore City Council and was a past president of the Baltimore League of Women Voters, died of heart failure May 23 at Springwell Senior Living in Mount Washington. She was 85. 'My mother was a woman of quiet strength, determination, and drive,' said her son, Norman V.A. Reeves III. 'Iris wanted to help people, and she did. She had a bright spirit that touched the people she encountered.' Born in Burlington, North Carolina, she was the daughter of Lucian Gant, a Western Electric painter, and Mabel Hazel Gant, a teacher. She was a member of the National Honor Society, the Future Homemakers of America and played saxophone in the school band. She earned a bachelor's degree in psychology and a master's degree in social work at Howard University. While at Howard, she met her future husband, Norman V.A. Reeves Jr. They married in 1962. 'They bonded because they shared an affinity for jazz,' said her son. 'They settled in the Fairmount neighborhood near Windsor Hills. When the time came, they both fought the construction of the Interstate highway through Leakin Park and West Baltimore.' Ms. Reeves became a psychiatric social worker with the State of Maryland and continued as a school social worker and later a student placement specialist with Baltimore City Public Schools. She served in the Maryland Office of Personnel as a legislative specialist. She worked behind the scenes for her husband when he began campaigning for a seat in the Baltimore City Council from the old Fifth District of Northwest Baltimore. After waging several campaigns in the 1970s, he was elected in 1979 and became the first Black candidate to serve the district. After his 1983 death, the council voted to appoint her to fill his term. 'In three subsequent elections, my mother was reelected to the council by very substantial margins and became a powerful political voice in her own right,' her son said. 'She connected to people through grassroots and community forums. She knew her neighbors, too. She had an infectious smile, pleasant spirit and vibrant personality.' Former Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke said, 'Iris was a warm and sensitive person who loved constituent service.' A City Council colleague, Rochelle 'Rikki' Spector, said, 'When she came on the Council and joined Vera Hall and me, we three were like sisters. We had a close personal relationship that benefited all our constituents. Iris was quiet, loving, patient and kind. She was a peacemaker.' Popular in the community, she also served as a past president of the Baltimore League of Women Voters, League for the Handicapped, American Civil Liberties Union, Fairmount Neighborhood Association, New Democratic Coalition, Women's Power, Inc., Baltimore City Commission for Children and Youth, and the Leukemia Society. She enjoyed traveling with her husband. They decorated their home with African art. Services will be held at 10:30 a.m. Saturday at Macedonia Baptist Church of Baltimore City, 718 W. Lafayette Ave. Survivors include her son, Norman V.A. Reeves III, of Hagerstown; two granddaughters; and a great-granddaughter. Her husband, Norman V.A. Reeves Jr., died in 1983. Her daughter, Traci A. Reeves, died in 1990. Have a news tip? Contact Jacques Kelly at and 410-332-6570.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. | Opinion This Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the laws on discrimination apply to everybody equally. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. Reverse discrimination isn't a thing. There is only discrimination. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. This case is a promising step, but legal neutrality on characteristics is not a consensus In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Education Secretary Linda McMahon Didn't Know About The Tulsa Race Massacre When Asked About ‘Illegal DEI' In Education
Source: The Washington Post / Getty Here's a question: Is there literally anyone in President Donald Trump's cabinet who is actually qualified for the position they have been appointed to? I ask because it appears that all of the highest offices in America (including the presidency) are being run by people who don't know things. We have a Homeland Security secretary who failed to correctly define habeas corpus; a Health and Human Services secretary who takes his grandchildren with him to swim in toxic sewage and has declared that people shouldn't take medical advice from him; a Secretary of Defense who has a remedial grasp on who our foreign allies are and can't seem to get it through his head that Signal group chats are not appropriate platforms to discuss confedential war plans on; a tech CEO who recently left the Department of Government Efficiency because it became more and more clear he didn't know what he was doing (Elon won't admit it, but that's why), and a host of other administrators who appear to be clueless when it comes to the thing they're supposed ot be experts in. This brings us to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the former pro wrestling mogul who somehow got appointed as the highest educational authority in the nation, despite her apparent ignorance of American history, specifically Black history, and, even more specifically, the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921. During a congressional hearing on Wednesday, McMahon was pressed by Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) to clarify which history lessons would be considered 'illegal DEI' under the Trump administration, which has made it a top priority to do all it can to ban diversity initiatives into 'woke' oblivion under the guise of promoting meritocracy — despite being, observably, the most woefully underqualified federal administration in recent history. Lee's inquiry turned into an impromptu quiz on Black history, which McMahon embarrassingly failed. 'Would it be 'illegal DEI' for a lesson plan on the Tulsa Race Massacre?' Lee asked McMahon. 'I'd have to get back to you on that,' McMahon said. 'Do you know what the Tulsa Race Massacre is?' Lee asked. 'I'd like to look into it more and get back to you on it,' McMahon replied. The Tulsa Race Massacre — in which hundreds of residents in the affluent Black town of Tulsa, Oklahoma, were lynched and had their homes and businesses destroyed by a massive white mob — happened more than a century ago, but don't worry, guys, sooner or later the highest educational authority in the land will learn about it, and then she'll get back to us on wheter it should be illegal to teach it. Also, Ruby Bridges, we're going to have to give McMahon some time on her story, too. 'How about the book 'Through My Eyes,' by Ruby Bridges, for instance?' Lee asked. 'I haven't read that,' McMahon responded. 'Have you learned about Ruby Bridges?' Lee said. 'If you have specific examples, you'd like to…' McMahon responded before Lee cut her off to note, 'That was a specific example… I named a specific book.' Besides the fact that a federal education secretary should be more well-versed on these subjects, this is simply what happens when Trump has white people out here deciding how much Black history is too much Black history. McMahon didn't know anything about the most well-known race riot in American history, and she didn't appear to know much (if anything) about the first Black student to attend a desegregated school in Louisiana — but she's the authority on which Black history subjects constitute 'illegal DEI'? (Also, how TF would Black history, or any history for that matter, fall under the DEI label at all. It's almost as if this administration is so racist that any curriculum that doesn't center white historical figures and events needs to be spot-checked to see if it passes the white fragility smell test, or else it gets slapped with the label that has become white America's favorite new racial slur.) Anyway, Lee has been appropriately unkind while ripping McMahon and the Trump administration for their anti-DEI propaganda, which is only made worse through their glaring lack of historical knowledge (or knowledge about anything, honestly). 'Even if Secretary McMahon was better versed in American history, there is no doubt her department would further attempt to whitewash history and ensure students don't have access to the facts,' Lee told The Grio, adding that the Trump administration's 'lack of knowledge, denial of history, and open racism' doesn't mean students across the country 'should be deprived of learning opportunities or access to a quality education.' Lee had smoke for the Trump administration during Wednesday's congressional session, too. 'When [you] call for removing of equity and inclusion and diversity and accessibility from schools in favor of 'traditional American values,' it's indistinguishable from … post-Civil War South advocating to rewrite history with the Lost Cause narrative [and] to censor truths about slavery,' she said. 'This department's financial aid policies harken back to a time when higher education was reserved for affluent, well-connected and predominantly white students.' Exactly! SEE ALSO: Trump's Job Corps 'Pause' Is MAGA's Plan To Eliminate Poor Youth MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Education Secretary Linda McMahon Didn't Know About The Tulsa Race Massacre When Asked About 'Illegal DEI' In Education was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
