Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[Mundial]

Exactly.

Almost exactly: it's martial law. I know, autocorrect. Or maybe you just spelled it wrong. It doesn't matter . . . except that Marshall is how MTG and Boebert and Loomer spell it so it's an eyesore.

Probably, typing on ever smaller iPhone font and doing my day job. Fixed it!

 

[Paine]

So I'm in a bad mood. In part because of things outlined on my ask a lawyer thread. In part because I find your posting style insulting. But my mood isn't all that relevant.

Thanks for taking the time to lay all that out. This is a conversation that’s been going on for decades, and the stakes are undeniably high. I really do respect your experience and your knowledge of political history and strategy. Otherwise I wouldn’t engage with you or anyone else here. But a few things need to be said in response.

1. I’m very aware of the patterns you point out: how the left’s infighting and refusal to coalesce behind Democratic nominees has contributed to repeated losses going back decades, including 2016 and 2024. I don’t take those lessons lightly. I understand the consequences of “sitting out” elections or throwing votes away as protest. That’s why I’ve voted for the Democratic candidate in every election I’ve been eligible to vote in. That’s why I’ve worked for Democratic campaigns, Democratic organizations, and Democratic elected officials since high school.

That history doesn’t mean honest, critical conversations about the direction of the party or the qualities of candidates should be shut down or dismissed as “moronic” or as coming from a “pariah group.” That kind of framing doesn’t advance the discussion; it closes it. It’s this dynamic that I’ve seen time and time again while working in Democratic politics. I’m not a leftist activist or whatever box you want to try to fit me into.

2. My critique of Newsom isn’t about “ridiculing” or wanting him to lose for the sake of it. It’s about a real concern that if the Democratic nominee feels like a slick product without emotional resonance for working-class and disaffected voters, the party is at serious risk. Emotional connection matters; it’s a fundamental part of politics that can’t be ignored. Calling that “populist left fantasy” misses the point. This is about strategy, plain and simple. I want to win elections and build power. That means reading the room and understanding what voters are responding to, not just what looks good to insiders or in focus groups.

Look, if the line about Newsom sounding like a “TED Talk and a DNC press release had a love child” set you off, that might be worth unpacking. Not because I was trying to provoke you personally, but because your reaction reveals something bigger.

You said: “Why throw in the shot at the DNC? You could make the same point by saying Newsom looks like a walked TED Talk without AGAIN taking a shot at Dems.”

But here’s the thing: the phrasing wasn’t meant to insult the DNC as an institution. It was a shorthand for a certain style of political communication. One that’s over-rehearsed, overly focus-grouped, and deeply disconnected from how real people talk and think. That matters because we’re in a moment where voters, especially disaffected working-class ones, are sick of being talked at. They’re tuning out the language of authority, even when the policies are decent.

So when I say Newsom sounds like a DNC press release, it’s not because I think the Democratic Party is evil. It’s because I think it’s emotionally out of step with what voters are responding to. And pointing that out shouldn’t be taboo if we’re serious about winning.

You seem to believe I’m taking potshots. I think I’m making a case about tone, presentation, and emotional resonance; things that win elections, whether we like it or not. If we can’t distinguish between constructive critique of political messaging and betrayal of the party, we’re not in a healthy place.

And I’d gently point out that for someone who’s often accused of having a difficult tone yourself, it’s a bit ironic to come down so hard on mine for something this stylistic. I’m not mocking the party. I’m trying to diagnose a problem that I think too many people inside the tent are afraid to name.

3. I don’t reject political context or pragmatic calculation. I know there are limits to what a candidate can do or say and still win a general election, especially in places that lean right or center. But the idea that we have to keep running polished, elite candidates who lack authenticity or depth because “that’s just how it is” is defeatist. And it’s also a big reason the left struggles to mobilize broad coalitions.

4. Regarding the tone and theory of disagreement: yes, I have a theory grounded in class consciousness. That doesn’t mean I’m accusing people here of bad faith or calling anyone sellouts. It’s a framework to understand why people prioritize certain issues or narratives. I’m happy to engage seriously with alternative perspectives. That’s how these conversations should work. But it’s frustrating when that framework is dismissed without serious engagement.

5. Finally, about Elissa Slotkin: I get it, and I respect her ability to win in a Trump state. That’s not insignificant. But respecting electoral victories doesn’t mean we can’t also push for policies that actually improve people’s lives and address systemic problems. Accountability and pressure are necessary parts of progress.

Look, I’m here to engage seriously and respectfully. I want us to have a conversation that moves beyond personal attacks or dismissiveness and focuses on what we need to do to build a winning, inclusive, and effective left. If we can agree on that, then the disagreements about tactics or candidates become much more productive.

 

[Calheel]

So what's your view on the Dem resistance? People are responding to Newsom -- like they are responding to some members of the House -- being willing to stand up to Trump despite Trump's threats. He's willing to be arrested even. That's leadership. It might be phony, but in the moment it seems like Newsom is doing what we would want any Dem governor to do.

And in the process, Newsom is going to expose Trump's weakness yet again. Who is going to win this fight? The answer is obvious: either Gavin will win and show that Trump is all hat and no cattle, or Trump is going to have to go full authoritarian and it's anyone's guess where that will end but I can't see him gaining much support with anyone but the most committed haters if there are military troops walking the streets.

Gavin would fucking LOVE to be arrested. He is practically begging for it. He so much wants to use a 30 minute stay in a jail as his Mandela moment. That isn't leadership. That is opportunism. Just like his poorly-acted profanity-laced screed to Jacob Soboroff begging Trump to arrest him and leave the four-year old girl alone That kind of performance wouldn't cut it at a mid-level Summer Theater on the Cape. It certainly doesn't qualify as a leadership in this day and age.

What a normal, non-opportunistic governor would do is issue some press releases and give a few, non-performative interviews/press conferences. Perhaps actually talk with Trump and try to de-escalate the situation on Sunday. But the last thing Newsom wants is for the situation to be de-escalated. He wants Trump to call in the troops. He wants the media spotlight so that he could look like a fake tough guy.

Newsom isn't going to win shit with this speech -- not in any way that matters. LA will go back to normal, like it always does, and Trump will prattle on about how he saved LA. Then he will rinse and repeat in a bunch of blue states and we will continue to have a few token, high-profile ICE raids that are solely designed to create civil unrest and project an "image" of strength for Trump.

The idea that anyone thinks Newsom doing a 20 minute prime time speech last night is going to do anything -- anything -- to weaken Trump or change his policies in any way is laughable. The one and only function of that speech was to raise Newsom's profile for 2028. That is the only thing it accomplished -- well that and making @dukeman92 elated because someone is finally standing up to Trump. So, at least there is that.

 

[eternalheel]

This calheel dude.....eek.

 

[Carolina Fever]

This calheel dude.....eek.

I think Newsom stole his woman.

 

[Calheel]

I think Newsom stole his woman.

The amount of homoerotic love on this board for Newsom is gross. I get it. Dude is good looking. People can stop lusting after him now.

 

[breepf]

The amount of homoerotic love on this board for Newsom is gross. I get it. Dude is good looking. People can stop lusting after him now.

I'll stop lusting once I fuck him.

 

[SnoopRob]

I've just now watched Newsom's press conference. It was good, not great, and he could use some wordsmithing assistance to appeal to folks across the political spectrum, if that's his goal. But it was also the first, real, full-throated repudiation of Trump's actions we've seen during this administration. It's a needed perspective/action from Dems and it was perfectly suitable for that occasion. It also did a good job of laying out both where Trump is wrong with regard to the events in LA and why his actions are wrong. All in all, it was a good speech and hit the notes it needed to hit.

I don't think Newsom is the greatest candidate for POTUS on the Dem side. He's from a prominent SF family and he made his way in life due to family connections. He got assistance out of college to start his business career due to family connections and he got his political start in SF due to family connections. From there, he used his connections and his personal skills to work up the political ladder to become governor of California. I don't think him fake, though, i think he's pretty authentically who he is coming from such a background. It doesn't make him the best candidate for POTUS in an age of populism, but I don't think he's faking who he is in any real terms.

And lol at anyone saying that JD Vance is "compelling" at connecting with disaffected voters. I live in Trump land and folks here don't give a shit about him except as an extension of Trump. He's Yale-educated lawyer who has worked in corporate law and venture capitalism before entering politics. He wasn't that great at politics, despite all of his elite backing, before Trump scooped him up as a willing toady for VP. He cosplays as someone who represents "working class" voters, but when you see him interact with those voter he's clearly lost and uncomfortable. He's a muppet used by the powerful on the right to pretend to have connections to working class voters, but he's about as authentic as a working class person as Kermit is as a real frog (sorry, Kermie, I still love you). Put him around real working class people and he'd be terrified and they'd sniff him out as an elitist in about 5 seconds.

 

[superrific]

Thanks for taking the time to lay all that out.

1. I’m very aware of the patterns you point out: how the left’s infighting and refusal to coalesce behind Democratic nominees has contributed to repeated losses going back decades, including 2016 and 2024. I don’t take those lessons lightly. I understand the consequences of “sitting out” elections or throwing votes away as protest. That’s why I’ve voted for the Democratic candidate in every election I’ve been eligible to vote in. That’s why I’ve worked for Democratic campaigns, Democratic organizations, and Democratic elected officials since high school.

That history doesn’t mean honest, critical conversations about the direction of the party or the qualities of candidates should be shut down or dismissed as “moronic” or as coming from a “pariah group.” That kind of framing doesn’t advance the discussion; it closes it. It’s this dynamic that I’ve seen time and time again while working in Democratic politics. I’m not a leftist activist or whatever box you want to try to fit me into.

2. My critique of Newsom isn’t about “ridiculing” or wanting him to lose for the sake of it. It’s about a real concern that if the Democratic nominee feels like a slick product without emotional resonance for working-class and disaffected voters, the party is at serious risk. Emotional connection matters; it’s a fundamental part of politics that can’t be ignored. Calling that “populist left fantasy” misses the point. This is about strategy, plain and simple. I want to win elections and build power. That means reading the room and understanding what voters are responding to, not just what looks good to insiders or in focus groups.

Look, if the line about Newsom sounding like a “TED Talk and a DNC press release had a love child” set you off, that might be worth unpacking. Not because I was trying to provoke you personally, but because your reaction reveals something bigger.

You said: “Why throw in the shot at the DNC? You could make the same point by saying Newsom looks like a walked TED Talk without AGAIN taking a shot at Dems.”

But here’s the thing: the phrasing wasn’t meant to insult the DNC as an institution. It was a shorthand for a certain style of political communication. One that’s over-rehearsed, overly focus-grouped, and deeply disconnected from how real people talk and think. That matters because we’re in a moment where voters, especially disaffected working-class ones, are sick of being talked at. They’re tuning out the language of authority, even when the policies are decent.

1. The conception of the left as a pariah group isn't an insult; it's a critique that the left has to take seriously -- in the exact same way that Dems should take your critique seriously. Leftists hate the Sister Souljah moment, and call Clinton a traitor because of it (or did, at least). They have not grappled with the implications, not that I've seen. Yes, there were racist undertones there. But Clinton couldn't win the election by standing next to Jesse Jackson, and certainly not next to hip hop. It costs more votes than it gains.

To take an even more vivid example: Bernie's lack of appreciation for the pariah nature of his politics cost him the nomination in 2020. He might have been victorious if he had just shut up about Fidel Castro. There's only one right answer in American politics to the question of whether Fidel Castro is good: he's not. He is a bad guy who has mired his country in poverty for seemingly forever. Yes, the American sanctions on Cuba were ridiculous and unhelpful, but the main problem was Fidel. Talking about Fidel's good side and critiquing America is just shit politics. So when you say that Bernie is good at talking to Americans, I'd beg to differ. He's good at talking to some Americans, like you. He's bad at talking to, say, wmheel who IIRC has said he would never vote for Bernie.

And it doesn't matter that Bernie had previously praised Fidel in the 1980s. The proper response would have been, "I was a mayor of a small Vermont town at the time. I've learned a lot since I've been in Congress. That's a good thing, not a bad thing." Saying, "well, Cuba has a great health system" is the wrong answer.

Arguably, that answer was more responsible for the Dems recent misfortunes than any of the factors often cited. It meant that the Dems had no choice but to take Bernie out, because he would have killed us up and down the ticket with whatever dumb shit he might have done next. Biden was the only consensus candidate, so he become the only viable not-Bernie option. And thus our low-energy octogenarian, who had clearly lost his fastball even at the time, became our standard bearer.

2. You are talking to a sophisticated audience here. When you say that Newsom comes across like a walking TED talk (I added the walking, but only because I've seen that trope in a lot of places), we understand that you are attacking his messaging style. We can read between the lines: you don't think our candidate should be corporate in style and presentation. Fine. That's certainly not a ridiculous point. Don't bring the DNC into it.

3. I propose an exercise for you, since you're young and can still learn new things. It's a bit CBT inspired; hopefully heelinhell will endorse it.

Go one month without saying anything about Democrats in general, and nothing negative about any individual Dem. Praise the folks you think worthy of it, and we will get the message that you are skeptical about the folks who you're not praising. To say, "I love Beshear becomes he comes across as so authentic" is also to say sub silentio that "Newsom doesn't." The difference is that yhou leave open a range of interpretive possibilities, and thus avoid alienating people.

For instance (using me only for an example)

You: Newsom comes across too much like a TED talk, whereas Beshear is more authentic.
Me: I think Newsom is more authentic than you give him credit for
You: Maybe, but after 2024, I don't want to take any chances. Let's go with a proven Middle America whisperer.

All the same content: none of the internecine feuding. If you took this approach more often, I'm pretty sure it would vastly improve your future prospects as a political actor.

4. As for my tone: yeah, that's a weakness of mine. That's my autism -- in my case, I trained myself to be incredibly attuned to other people instead of myself. Usually it means I'm generous and empathetic in many ways. I'm good at critiquing other people's behavior, both good and bad.

As to myself, I apparently have no real understanding of how I come across to others. It's not for lack of trying. I think I simply cannot focus on myself and other people at the same time, and I've chosen the latter because empathy is better than self-absorption. The consequence is that there's a gap I fail to bridge. I do my best.

So yes, I'm aware of that irony.

 

[superrific]

What a normal, non-opportunistic governor would do is issue some press releases and give a few, non-performative interviews/press conferences. Perhaps actually talk with Trump and try to de-escalate the situation on Sunday. But the last thing Newsom wants is for the situation to be de-escalated. He wants Trump to call in the troops. He wants the media spotlight so that he could look like a fake tough guy.

And that is actually the right approach. Do not negotiate with terrorists. You're asking him to be Columbia when he's trying to stand up and be Harvard.

I also want Trump to call in the troops. This is a reckoning that we are going to have eventually, and it's better to have it out now rather than letting Trump slowly boil us with a military presence until there are active military at poll stations.

 

[Carolina Fever]

The amount of homoerotic love on this board for Newsom is gross. I get it. Dude is good looking. People can stop lusting after him now.

I don't feel one way or the other about him. I don’t know enough about him. But your reaction over his address is just way out there.

 

[Paine]

And lol at anyone saying that JD Vance is "compelling" at connecting with disaffected voters. I live in Trump land and folks here don't give a shit about him except as an extension of Trump. He's Yale-educated lawyer who has worked in corporate law and venture capitalism before entering politics. He wasn't that great at politics, despite all of his elite backing, before Trump scooped him up as a willing toady for VP. He cosplays as someone who represents "working class" voters, but when you see him interact with those voter he's clearly lost and uncomfortable. He's a muppet used by the powerful on the right to pretend to have connections to working class voters, but he's about as authentic as a working class person as Kermit is as a real frog (sorry, Kermie, I still love you). Put him around real working class people and he'd be terrified and they'd sniff him out as an elitist in about 5 seconds.

I don’t think we actually disagree here.

To clarify, I wasn’t calling JD Vance authentic. I was saying he performs authenticity in a way that lands with a certain slice of disaffected voters. That’s not a compliment. It’s an observation about political style and media dynamics.

You’re right that Vance is a Yale-educated venture capital guy backed by Peter Thiel. And yes, a lot of Trump country folks probably do just see him as an extension of Trump. But that’s the point. He gets to cosplay as a populist because the current political media environment rewards certain tones, cadences, and cultural signals, even when they come from total phonies.

He knows how to hit the emotional notes: resentment, betrayal, the sense that “they sold us out.” Even if he doesn’t live a word of it. That’s dangerous. And that’s why I raised the comparison with Newsom, who seems completely incapable of even pretending to offer that kind of emotional connection.

 

[SnoopRob]

The amount of homoerotic love on this board for Newsom is gross. I get it. Dude is good looking. People can stop lusting after him now.

That's quite the silly statement from someone whose reactions to him come across strongly as "jilted former lover".

You seem to read a lot into both Newsom and support for him, all in the most negative light possible. I'm not sure what put this bee in your bonnet, but it doesn't seem to be explained by anything Newsom has done (when compared to things that other politicians also do on a daily basis).

 

[SnoopRob]

I don’t think we actually disagree here.

To clarify, I wasn’t calling JD Vance authentic. I was saying he performs authenticity in a way that lands with a certain slice of disaffected voters. That’s not a compliment. It’s an observation about political style and media dynamics.

You’re right that Vance is a Yale-educated venture capital guy backed by Peter Thiel. And yes, a lot of Trump country folks probably do just see him as an extension of Trump. But that’s the point. He gets to cosplay as a populist because the current political media environment rewards certain tones, cadences, and cultural signals, even when they come from total phonies.

He knows how to hit the emotional notes: resentment, betrayal, the sense that “they sold us out.” Even if he doesn’t live a word of it. That’s dangerous. And that’s why I raised the comparison with Newsom, who seems completely incapable of even pretending to offer that kind of emotional connection.

The difference is that you think Vance actually connects with disaffected voters and I disagree.

He's currently accepted in Trump World because Trump approves of him, not because of anything about Vance. Trump World would accept a rotten fence post as a proper political figure if Trump told them to, as agreeing with Trump is the first rule of Trump World. But much like dozens and dozens and dozens of others, as soon as Trump no longer has any use for him, both Trump and Trump World will cast him out and the lack of connection to disaffected voters will be plain again.

 

[Paine]

1. The conception of the left as a pariah group isn't an insult; it's a critique that the left has to take seriously -- in the exact same way that Dems should take your critique seriously. Leftists hate the Sister Souljah moment, and call Clinton a traitor because of it (or did, at least). They have not grappled with the implications, not that I've seen. Yes, there were racist undertones there. But Clinton couldn't win the election by standing next to Jesse Jackson, and certainly not next to hip hop. It costs more votes than it gains.

Appreciate the long reply. There’s a lot here I disagree with, but I also want to take your points seriously, so I’ll try to give them the kind of engagement they deserve.

On the “pariah” status of the left, sure, I get the critique. I’m not denying that the left has often struggled to communicate in ways that resonate broadly. I’ve said many times that Bernie and others on the left have sometimes made unforced errors. The Castro comments were one of them. They were politically tone-deaf. Still, that mistake shouldn’t obscure the broader reality. The guy was drawing huge crowds and enormous energy from people who had long felt ignored by the system. That mattered. That’s what I mean when I say he knew how to talk to a wide swath of Americans. He tapped into something real, even if his delivery sometimes got in the way.

More broadly, I think you’re underestimating how much voters, especially younger ones, value consistency, bluntness, and a willingness to call out systemic problems, even when that makes consultants and older party stalwarts uncomfortable. I’m not saying the left shouldn’t grow strategically. It should, but I don’t buy that the only path to power is through triangulation or the kind of cautious messaging that dominates D.C. Democrats. That’s just not where the energy is. And 2024 showed us again that risk-aversion can be its own kind of risk.

On the DNC press release line, I hear you. I really do. It wasn’t a swipe at you, or even the Democratic Party writ large. It was a critique of a particular style of communication that feels bloodless and over-calculated. It’s not just Newsom, and it’s not a moral judgment. It’s a political one. That style doesn’t connect with people outside elite bubbles. That’s all I was trying to say. And frankly, I think more people in the party need to be open to hearing that kind of feedback without treating it like sabotage.

As for your proposed rhetorical experiment, I get the spirit of it, and maybe there’s something to learn from the exercise. But here’s where we differ: I don’t think clarity about what’s not working is inherently divisive. If the party is going to win and hold power in a volatile environment, it has to create space for internal critique without immediately framing it as disloyalty. Praising Beshear without noting how he contrasts with the national brand risks flattening everything into empty consensus, which is exactly the problem many voters already sense. They smell fear and message discipline from a mile away. What we need is genuine debate, not just coded signaling.

Finally, on your tone. I respect your honesty, and I do think you often bring thoughtful insight into these conversations. But I also think you confuse a lack of deference with disrespect. I engage with your posts seriously. That doesn’t mean I have to echo your premises or avoid criticizing figures or institutions you’re invested in. And when you speak on behalf of what other posters think about me or my style, you come off less like someone invested in shared understanding and more like someone policing the conversation. You might not intend it that way, but that’s how it lands.

Anyway, I do appreciate the exchange. I think it’s worth continuing, especially if we can both stay focused on substance instead of vibe-checking each other’s political aesthetics.

 

[ZenMode]

The amount of homoerotic love on this board for Newsom is gross. I get it. Dude is good looking. People can stop lusting after him now.

 

[Paine]

The difference is that you think Vance actually connects with disaffected voters and I disagree.

He's currently accepted in Trump World because Trump approves of him, not because of anything about Vance. Trump World would accept a rotten fence post as a proper political figure if Trump told them to, as agreeing with Trump is the first rule of Trump World. But much like dozens and dozens and dozens of others, as soon as Trump no longer has any use for him, both Trump and Trump World will cast him out and the lack of connection to disaffected voters will be plain again.

I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re underestimating how much of the right-wing electorate responds to aesthetics and performance, even if they don’t particularly like the person doing the performing. You’re right. Vance isn’t some magnetic figure with a deep bond to working-class voters, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t useful to the right’s project, or that he doesn’t know how to imitate the language of alienation well enough to be effective.

He’s not beloved, but he’s legible. When he rails against elites, even if he is one, he’s performing a script that a slice of disaffected voters, especially white men who feel culturally displaced, recognize. It doesn’t matter that he’s full of it. It matters that he speaks in the idiom of resentment and cultural grievance, which travels farther than people think.

Put differently: he doesn’t need to be loved. He just needs to be “one of us” in the way he talks and who he targets, even if it’s all theater. That’s enough to get people to shrug and go, “eh, close enough.” And in a low-trust, post-truth political culture, “close enough” often wins.

If Trump isn’t the nominee in 2028, who stands to tap into that emotional connection? Will they do it better than Newsom or whoever else the Democratic nominee is? I thinks that’s the terrain we’re playing on. Interested in hearing who others think can bridge both authenticity and substance.

 

[stankeylegjones]

So I finally got around to watching the Newsom Statewide address... (it wasn't specifically a "Nationwide" address per se, not initially at least... National media picked it up and ran with it). I liked it. I thought he hit it out of the park. I didn't' detect anything that could be construed as "fake". He was on point 100%.

I also recall his head-to-head with DeSantis Dec. 2023. I thought Gavin hit a home run there too.

I still contend Cal doth protest too much methinks...

I also agree with the poster that said something like Uncle Joe putting on a wig wanting to play in a ladies H.S. softball game is not the hill the Dems should strive to die on. So Newsom alluding to that fact shouldn't be a deal breaker - not in my book at least.

Yes, it's clear that Calheel has an unfounded, irrational, hatred of Newsom.

 

[Centerpiece]

Personally I don’t mind Newsom as a National candidate. I thought he did well in debating both DeSantis and Hannity in Dec. 2023… on FOX no less. Recall that debate. Every chart and graphic Hannity put up tried to paint Cali in a negative light, and he then tried to say his questions were neutral. BS. Did he happen to allude to the fact that Fla rates well below Cali in just about every socio-economic metric? No, of course not. But Gavin held is own and even won that debate, hands down by any objective view.

Now he’s going toe to toe with Trump. Good on him. As has been noted, no Dems have been stepping up, but now Newsom has. And we want to throw him under the bus because of his hair? His dinner out? His questioning the wisdom of dying on the hill of trans athletes? Seriously?

We’re on the friggin cusp of Martial law under the thumb of an authoritarian dictator and we want to cast aspersions on the only Democratic politician with the balls to say “No Fucking Kings!”

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s keep that shit up for another 12 months and see what the mid-terms are shaping up like next year…

 

[Kingpin]

Gavin would fucking LOVE to be arrested. He is practically begging for it. He so much wants to use a 30 minute stay in a jail as his Mandela moment. That isn't leadership. That is opportunism. Just like his poorly-acted profanity-laced screed to Jacob Soboroff begging Trump to arrest him and leave the four-year old girl alone That kind of performance wouldn't cut it at a mid-level Summer Theater on the Cape. It certainly doesn't qualify as a leadership in this day and age.

What a normal, non-opportunistic governor would do is issue some press releases and give a few, non-performative interviews/press conferences. Perhaps actually talk with Trump and try to de-escalate the situation on Sunday. But the last thing Newsom wants is for the situation to be de-escalated. He wants Trump to call in the troops. He wants the media spotlight so that he could look like a fake tough guy.

Newsom isn't going to win shit with this speech -- not in any way that matters. LA will go back to normal, like it always does, and Trump will prattle on about how he saved LA. Then he will rinse and repeat in a bunch of blue states and we will continue to have a few token, high-profile ICE raids that are solely designed to create civil unrest and project an "image" of strength for Trump.

The idea that anyone thinks Newsom doing a 20 minute prime time speech last night is going to do anything -- anything -- to weaken Trump or change his policies in any way is laughable. The one and only function of that speech was to raise Newsom's profile for 2028. That is the only thing it accomplished -- well that and making @dukeman92 elated because someone is finally standing up to Trump. So, at least there is that.

Between Vance (or any pub) and Newsome, who would you vote for if they were the 2 nominated candidates for President in Nov 2027?