Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[dukeman92]

The fact that “swing voters” & centrists do not hold both sides to the same standard is the problem. You look for a perfect Democratic candidate while allowing and/or helping 33% of the electorate cast their lot for Donald Trump.

I go back to the slogan Van Jones authored during the election season. “She has to be flawless while he’s allowed to be lawless”

 

[Centerpiece]

JDVance is “compelling” or “his story is compelling”.
I had stuff like that on ignore. My bad for the unignore.
I can’t un-see that shit.
For fuck’s sake!
JD tells “compelling” stories but Gavin is un-electable.
And this is why I’m worried about the future. We got 25 year old, educated males who think this way.
No wonder trump did well with young males. They some dumb muthafuckers.

 

[dukeman92]

Nobody authored that ticket because of JD fucking Vance. Give me a break.

 

[Kingpin]

I’m with Calheel on this. I know some of y’all love Gavin Newsom, but I really think a lot of voters are going to see through him.

The man looks like a political product designed in a lab: slick, polished, never off message. In this political moment, people are desperate for someone who feels real. Someone who talks like they’ve actually lived some of what regular people are going through. Newsom doesn’t hit that note in my opinion.

Now imagine him up against someone like J.D. Vance. Someone who has a compelling personal story and knows how to tell it in a way that hits the populist notes. Vance would lean into that every day. “I came from nothing. Newsom came from Napa money and political connections.” He’d be hammering that contrast while Newsom is talking about green energy grants and metrics.

I’m not saying I like Vance. Obviously I don’t. But I do think he understands how to perform authenticity in a way that a lot of swing voters respond to. Newsom, by contrast, feels more like a segment on MSNBC. That might excite liberals who follow politics closely, but it won’t move disaffected or working class voters who already feel alienated from the system.

Nominate Newsom, and we risk walking right into a repeat of 2016. Flashy, confident, polished candidate who completely misses the emotional mood of the country.

You mean like Ronald Regan?

 

[superrific]

You’re not actually responding to what I said. You’re reacting to what you want me to have said because it’s easier to dunk on a straw man than engage with the substance.

I'm reacting to your mockery of Gavin Newsom as talking about green energy credits. Here's a rule that I follow and you should too: stop attacking Democrats. Here are a couple of ways of discussing the issue:

1. I'm not sure Gavin's image will play well among blue collar voters, and nominating him would be doubling down on the strategy that didn't work in 24.

See, that's respectful. I might even agree with that take. Personally, I'm not interested in thinking about a Dem candidate for at least a couple of years, but this take is non-ridiculous.

2. But you went with "Vance would be hammering that contrast while Newsom is talking about green energy grants and metrics." That the GFY part. If you hate Trump, then you absolutely cannot trash other Dems. Because one of them might end up as the nominee, and meanwhile you and your leftist friends will have created a paper record of problems with him. This is exactly how Bernie lost us the election in 2016. Comey's October surprise shouldn't have been important, and probably wouldn't have moved the needle but for Bernie's six months of attacking HRC as corrupt.

 

[superrific]

If pointing that out makes you spiral, maybe the real problem isn’t my take, brother. Maybe it’s how little interest there is in actually thinking critically about political messaging on our side. That’s how we keep getting blindsided in November.

Dude. I can't speak for Centerpiece, but he and I are not political twins. We're both liberals. We don't agree on everything. But you've managed to piss us both off. There are plenty of other posters here also taking you to the woodshed. The real problem is how you express yourself.

What you don't seem to grasp is the degree that your posts are personally insulting. Like most leftists, you are most comfortable with the language of intentionality. This is why I say you have no theory of disagreement (which you then confirmed). People who disagree with you are corrupt, or duplicitous, or the many other labels that get attached simply because we are not Marxists. You even offhandedly comment that your theory of disagreement is class consciousness. Since you clearly see yourself as salt of the earth, the obvious implication is that our views are bourgeois. That's insulting, and it's inaccurate. There are a lot of people on this board who have been fighting the GOP for twice as long as you've been alive, son.

Zoo View has talked about his experiences working for . . . Jim Hunt's campaign against Jesse Helms. That was 1984. What have you done?

I get it: you're 25 or 27 or whatever. Your resume isn't going to be as stacked as old timers. But damn, dude, show a little respect and stop accusing everyone of being sellouts.

 

[TarSpiel]

The California connection is a major hurdle for a national candidate.

That's the success of weaponized right wing propaganda.

The fact is, California has one of the largest economies in the world, and contributes enough money to the federal budget to underwrite the food stamps and Medicare care for much of "real America"

Not saying Cali isn't a hurdle for a national candidate, just that the fact that it *is* a hurdle is testament to how much pubs fear it.

 

[superrific]

Respect is a two-way street, and I’m always open to it.

The issue here is that you assume my critique means I think anyone here is corrupt or a sellout. Pointing out political disagreements and systemic problems isn’t the same as personal attacks. You can disagree with someone’s views without calling them a fraud or worse.

Well, you might want to look around you. I'm not the only one reacting in this way.

The problem isn't that you're disagreeing. It's that you're caricaturing. Saying Newsom would be talking about energy credits is not a concise way to do anything except mock. If you want to say Gavin will come across as out of touch, then say that. You don't have to create a bullshit straw man to knock down.

To be concrete: I have absolutely no problem with this statement of yours: "That’s the concern with Newsom. He’s got polish, but he doesn’t project any lived struggle or emotional depth that resonates with working-class or disaffected voters."

That's a fair critique. Notice that what you're saying here is tightly focused on Newsom's image, one that he chooses to project himself. I'm not sure that projecting lived struggle is actually all that important (and again, your guy Beshear has no more of that quality than Gavin), but that's an opinion. That's worth talking about.

Another way of putting the point is: can you imagine a hundred thousand screaming European fanboys showing out for a visit from Gavin Newsom as they did for Barack Obama? I can't. And while those are Europeans and not directly relevant, there's obviously a difference in relatability between those two candidates, and surely that was a big part of Barack's success.

But you were spending hours yesterday trying to lecture me about corporate finance. How do you think I should respond? It's not that I don't understand your point. I do. As you have surely seen, I'm not some frat boy turned corporate lawyer. I have a depth of experience in the same theory you do -- come on, do you think I don't understand historical materialism? The problem here is that your point is wrong, at least in the way you apply it. Actually, it's not even totally wrong, but you chose to fight over the part that is. Then, when it was explained to you by someone who actually knows the field, you kept coming back with this class consciousness bullshit. Equity finance is not some bourgeois capitalist plot. It existed long before capitalism. One crucial competitive advantage of Flanders and Venice in the early Renaissance was their liberal incorporation law. It made trading possible in a way that it was not elsewhere.

 

[Mundial]

A stupid, tone-deaf opportunistic launch of a presidential campaign.

He absolutely crushed Trump, SecDef, was the most cogent and compelling political speaker since at least this last election cycle, came across as logical, lucid, sane, Presidential and a patriotic American. He almost sounded like a founding father. That he could accomplish such things in response to this administration’s latest antics shows just how far our government has fallen.

You can tell yourself it was tone deaf but I think you are dead wrong. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I think Trump is playing with fire.

 

[hedge]

Your hatred of Newsom seems to be emotional and not logical.

I think this is true by definition...

 

[superrific]

You can tell yourself it was tone deaf but I think you are dead wrong. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I think Trump is playing with fire.

To Paine's point above: Newsom's persona doesn't project personal struggle. But if Trump goes after him, tries to arrest him, and he resists -- well, that's a pretty fucking personal struggle, isn't it?

 

[theel4life]

He absolutely crushed Trump, SecDef, was the most cogent and compelling political speaker since at least this last election cycle, came across as logical, lucid, sane, Presidential and a patriotic American. He almost sounded like a founding father. That he could accomplish such things in response to this administration’s latest antics shows just how far our government has fallen.

You can tell yourself it was tone deaf but I think you are dead wrong. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I think Trump is playing with fire.

 

[TarSpiel]

I think this is true by definition...

 

[ZenMode]

I think this is true by definition...

 

[Mundial]

To Paine's point above: Newsom's persona doesn't project personal struggle. But if Trump goes after him, tries to arrest him, and he resists -- well, that's a pretty fucking personal struggle, isn't it?

To be clear I am not sure that Newsome projected that way previously but life and history are made up of pivotal moments and this stand against Trump’s first attempt to cause and use civil unrest as a pretext for declaring martial law may have given Newsome the moment that he needed to redefine himself to the American public as precisely the law and order candidate for President that will uphold the morals and virtues enshrined by the founding fathers in our Constitution. Trump clearly does not care about such things and the juxtaposition between the two was striking.

Add in that Newsome is a younger, better looking, and taller white male (which clearly matters to most of the voting public) and I definitely think that Trump has cause to be afraid.

Whether Newsom is the best candidate that some on the left prefer is almost beside the point if this plays out as Newsome leading the fight at the turning of the tide against a facist dictatorship.

 

[hedge]

But I do think he understands how to perform authenticity

Interesting phrase, that.. "Perform authenticity"...

 

[superrific]

You keep saying you’re not the only one reacting this way, but let’s be honest: nobody else in the thread has told me to “go fuck myself” or launched into multi-post rants about my tone. Every other poster, aside from Centerpiece for some reason, has engaged with my points respectfully and vice-versa.

As for the green energy credits line, it wasn’t a straw man. It was a rhetorical shorthand to highlight the contrast in political instincts. You even admitted you agreed with the broader point when stated differently. So maybe take the win instead of demanding that everyone speak in a style that flatters your sensibilities.

I’m not here to debate the finer points of Renaissance merchant law. Go back to the other thread if you really want to continue that discussion.

I’m here to talk about how voters, especially disaffected ones, respond to candidates. You keep reaching for your resume and theories of finance while ignoring the basic emotional pitch of politics, which was my whole point from the start.

If we’re going to talk about what actually wins elections, then yes, we’re going to have to talk about emotional connection, projection of authenticity, and, yes, how candidates come off to people outside elite circles. That’s not mockery; it’s reality. And if you really want to beat Vance or whoever’s coming next, maybe we should be talking more about that and less about your frustrations with my tone.

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.

1. This isn't about taking the win. I was responding to your post about how weird it was for Centerpiece to be frustrated with you. It's a community-focused point that sneaked into a thread, as often happens when thread volume exceeds thread content. The fact is that the way you talk pisses people off. It might piss me off more than anyone, but then again, I get exasperated by this shit very easily.

2. Anyway, the frustrating part is your unwillingness to listen to our experiences, which are ample and worthwhile. For instance, we mentioned Nader yesterday and he has come up again. What you don't remember was that the lefties WERE ROOTING FOR BUSH. They thought that if they would withhold their votes, they could force the Dems to the left. Yeah, that's not the way it works. We got John Kerry in 04; the Green Party fell on its face; and the radical revolution they hoped for didn't happen. Just like it didn't happen in 1968.

So it's especially aggravating to us when this exact same dynamic was replicated in 2016. Leftists taking shots at the Dem candidate. I don't know if they were openly rooting for Trump (some of them were, like Greenwald), but they didn't really support HRC either. IIRC more than 10% of Bernie voters voted for Trump. Women in America lost their right to choose because of this. Had the leftists done the antifa thing BEFORE the election, it would have gone differently.

Now it's 2025, and we just watched the Left AGAIN hand an election to Trump, or at least contribute to it, with the moronic uncommitted bullshit. Again, they were trying to make Biden lose. They said as much. They got a scalp. We got stuck with fascism. AGAIN. For the fourth time in the past 55 years, the left decided to sit out an election or even vote the wrong way because they were angry at Dems. How did this work out for them?

3. Well, now you're here and you're ridiculing a potential presidential candidate. You're pushing this idea that somehow the Dems need a populist leftist candidate, all the while ignoring that the left in America is a pariah group. Veering left hurts Dems. That's just how it is. And we know, because we've lived through it for years. Why Americans are more comfortable with the shit sandwich the right advertises rather than trying something new with the left -- like Trump said, what have you got to lose? It's fucking frustrating. But it's reality and running that left candidate into a slaughterhouse is not a great idea.

You diss on Elissa Slotkin. Fine. I didn't like her centrist roundtable thing either, where she basically said that Dems have to give up most of our principles in order to compete. That's a huge overreaction. But it's also true that Elissa Slotkin won in a state that went to Trump. You can't say that Elissa Slotkin doesn't know how to win in Michigan. So maybe, you know, we ought to defer a little bit to her judgment? We don't have to agree with her; but we can avoid calling her names and ragging on her as you were doing yesterday.

 

[Carolina Fever]

 

[superrific]

The idea that I like Beshear because he “looks like a good ole boy” doesn’t hold up under five seconds of scrutiny. it’s their ability to connect with working people in emotionally resonant ways and speak plainly about material issues. That’s what I care about. If you reduce that to optics, maybe that says more about how you evaluate candidates than how I do.

I wasn't being serious in my allegation. It was to illustrate that almost everything you say about Gavin applies to Beshear as well.

If you like the way that Beshear connects with working class people, then say that. You don't have to attack other Dems to praise the ones you especially like.

This is precisely the reason why the Dems didn't want to have a contested primary in 2024. It wasn't Biden's reason, but it was the reason so many Dems went along with that idea. And it was certainly the reason why we didn't go with any sort of primary after Biden dropped out. Our team so often gets hurt by primaries because our ostensible friends on the left can't keep from pissing in the garden.

Maybe it's just communication style. You've written several things on this thread that wouldn't be objectionable -- indeed, might even be good points -- if you could frame it in a way that doesn't come across as ingratitude.

 

[rodoheel]

I am not a fan of Newsom as a national candidate. Like CalHeel, I find him to be an utterly fake political opportunist. However, I don't really have any criticism to make of his efforts to stand up to Trump over the last week or so, and I think he is generally exhibiting solid leadership in the process.