Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 423
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
Mundial said:
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 Marshall 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rodoheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's weird to see the thought processes in some quarters:

In May: Dems aren't doing anything to stop Trump. Won't one of them stand up? Where's the resistance?
In June: Newsom says that Trump will have to arrest him to stop his resistance. So obviously, the left is saying, "what a fake, just a made for TV phony."
 
Paine said:
Newsom, on the other hand, talks like a TED Talk and a DNC press release had a love child. It doesn’t connect emotionally. That doesn’t mean I think Vance is “authentic” in any meaningful sense. It means he knows how to perform it.
Click to expand...
1. You just can't stop yourself, can you? 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. I think you're doing it on purpose now.

2. Vance hasn't connected with anyone emotionally ever. Nobody likes that dude. Not Ohioan voters, that's for sure -- he won the state because it's red, but he won no friends along the way. Also, he doesn't talk like a populist. He talks down to people like he's a fucking Yale Law grad, except that I think he must have skipped all his law classes because he seems to know very little.
 
superrific said:
Yeah, it's weird to see the thought processes in some quarters:

In May: Dems aren't doing anything to stop Trump. Won't one of them stand up? Where's the resistance?
In June: Newsom says that Trump will have to arrest him to stop his resistance. So obviously, the left is saying, "what a fake, just a made for TV phony."
Click to expand...
The left isn’t saying it. I am saying it. The left has been pretty willing to jump on the Newsom bandwagon today after abandoning him after his bro turn the last four months.
 
superrific said:
Yeah, it's weird to see the thought processes in some quarters:

In May: Dems aren't doing anything to stop Trump. Won't one of them stand up? Where's the resistance?
In June: Newsom says that Trump will have to arrest him to stop his resistance. So obviously, the left is saying, "what a fake, just a made for TV phony."
Click to expand...
I mean, I'm not just saying now that Newsom is a made for TV phony. I've long thought that. His whole "centrist turn" after the election just exacerbated those issues. But I explicitly said I think he's doing a good job now. I'm glad he's standing up to Trump. That doesn't override my larger impression of him.
 
Calheel said:
The left isn’t saying it. I am saying it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rodoheel said:
I mean, I'm not just saying now that Newsom is a made for TV phony. I've long thought that. His whole "centrist turn" after the election just exacerbated those issues. But I explicitly said I think he's doing a good job now. I'm glad he's standing up to Trump. That doesn't override my larger impression of him.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aiming that comment at you. I was agreeing with you. I don't have any love for Gavin either. I mean, we all know what that hair style signifies. But we really, really need to stop harshing on our friends.

And I really don't have any issue with Gavin floating balloons about connecting with male voters. Nor do I see any issue at all with being on the politically correct side of trans women in sports. It can be simultaneously true that a) the objections are mostly bad faith and b) we could very well get killed if we are seen as bending over for trans people.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
Probably, typing on ever smaller iPhone font and doing my day job. Fixed it!
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Calheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top