Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
I’d take Trey Crowder in a heartbeat.
You can't be serious.

You really think that the governor of California - nearly certainly the most important state in the country - isn't a reasonable candidate for POTUS, but a social media influencer is?
 
The real problem is that you seem to think that you've shown that Newsom is "worse than the average politician" while offering evidence that is only convincing to you.
I can only do my best. I would have picked a different jury in voir dire if I had a chance. This jury seems disinclined to fully consider Newsom's negatives.
 
You can't be serious.

You really think that the governor of California - nearly certainly the most important state in the country - isn't a reasonable candidate for POTUS, but a social media influencer is?
I am not serious. Obviously, Trey would be a worse candidate than Newsom from a strategery point of view.
 
Thanks for the reply. I think your analysis misses some crucial points about political connection and strategy.

First, the idea that “connecting” requires a two-way relationship in a fully reciprocal sense is a bit idealistic, especially in the current hyper-mediated, low-trust political landscape. Connection often looks more like symbolic representation or performed affinity. Vance or others do not need a genuine two-way bond to be effective; they just need to convincingly signal they understand and represent the grievances and identity of disaffected voters. That is enough to build political power. You do not have to love the politician to feel they speak for you.

Second, reducing right-wing voters to mere “echo chambers” who just follow whatever Trump says overlooks the complex emotional and cultural dynamics driving their support. Trump is powerful as a kingmaker, sure, but that power only exists because of a persistent underlying political sentiment that these candidates tap into. Ignoring this deeper resonance limits our ability to counter it effectively.

Third, framing Democrats’ path to victory simply as “getting their voters to the polls” plus a few swing voters from the middle vastly understates the challenge. That strategy failed spectacularly in 2024 and will continue to fail unless Democrats develop a political vision that authentically connects with disaffected and working-class voters, including those on the right who feel alienated. Simply relying on base turnout without broader engagement is not sustainable.

Finally, your take is devoid of substantive ideas for how Democrats should engage or compete on cultural and economic terrain. It is all defensive, reactive, and minimalist. That kind of pablum will not cut it when the right is offering vivid, if flawed, narratives of identity and grievance that are resonating with large swaths of the electorate.
Connecting is inherently a two-way relationship because the politician needs the electorate to turn out at the ballot box. Trump is able to connect in the way that gets folks to take action on his behalf. Since 2015, so many other Republicans, both mainstream and Trump imitators, have failed to be able to move the right-wing electorate in the way that Trump has. And that is the challenge that faces the Republican Party in about 3 more years unless they intend to run Trump again for an unconstitutional 3rd term.

I'm not overlooking the ways in which Trump gets his supporters to take action on his behalf, I'm simply taking it for granted for the sake of this discussion.

Dems did fail at "getting their voters to the polls" in 2024...in what was the most outlier POTUS election in modern history with the presumptive nominee dropping out mere months before the general election and a replacement nominee being chosen by current office/general acclimation without a primary. The main lesson that can be taken from the 2024 election is not be sure your nominee can see the election season through to the general election. Once it became obvious that Biden wasn't up to being the nominee, the race was Trump's to lose. Taking almost anything else from solely from that race says more about the person making the proclamations than it does the race itself.

Finally, my take you quoted is completely devoid of substantive ideas for how Dems should engage or compete on cultural and economic terrain...because I made no efforts to address that topic. That it is "pablum" or "all defensive, reactive, and minimalist" is completely in your head because it doesn't exist and you're projecting your own issues with the mainstream of the Democratic Party onto my completely nonexistent argument.
 
We can only hope you're not as serious in the rest of the views you've shared on this thread.
Of course who would have thought social media star Donald Trump could defeat Florida governor Jeb Bush in 2016.

But I don’t think Trey can quite pull an inside straight like Donald.

In any event, if the Democratic choices are Trey or Gavin in 2028, we are losing either way.

Although I do think Jon Stewart could be a dark horse candidate. He is 2x the debater that Gavin Newsom is and he has the advantage of actually believing what he says.
 
First of all, I think a lot of people are applying the following logic:
Trump = bad
Gavin no like Trump
Gavin = good

Second, this thread has given me some insight into why Democrats don't win elections. They think a highly coiffed aristocrat feigning outrage about Trump on an MSNBC/CNN primetime speech actually does something. That is why I linked Bonnie Tyler (although maybe I should have gone with the Shrek video instead). Gavin is no hero and he is not accomplishing anything positive for Democrats. This whole thing is theater. It is no different than Trump conducting high profile ICE raids for theater. Gavin saying that everything was in control until Donald sent his rascally troops to LA isn't playing in Peoria.

It is "feel good" politics. Newsom says some words that are anti-Trump and everybody wants to give him a cyberhug. Count me out. I'll take the genuine AOC/Bernie rallies to SRO audiences or the Elon/no kings protests as something with a bit more gravitas. Newsom unveiling his 2028 candidacy does exactly zero for anyone in California or anyone anywhere.



You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used to troll you.
 
I agree that the thread got sidetracked into personal attacks and emotional invective instead of focusing on what Newsom actually does or should do.

This thread probably wasn’t the best place to talk about Newsom’s 2028 weaknesses given the context of the moment, but there did seem to be several posters who like Newsom and would support him in 2028 just because he’s anti-Trump and comes across as polished.

Calheel’s critiques were more grounded than some made them out to be though. In today’s political environment, style is substance for a lot of voters. When someone comes off as phony or opportunistic, people pick up on that. Especially those already skeptical of both parties.

The performative slickness isn’t a minor aesthetic quibble, it’s a warning sign about how a candidate might govern, who they’ll prioritize, and how much they’re willing to bend based on polling or ambition.
Please list the Gavin Newsom supporters for the 2028 Democratic nomination.
 
Sure, Reagan was polished. But he also knew how to tell a story that felt personal, even mythic, to millions of Americans. He offered a narrative about struggle, hope, and patriotism that tapped into people’s emotions, not just their policy preferences. You don’t have to admire the guy to acknowledge that he connected.

Reagan’s genius wasn’t in the policies themselves, it was in how he marketed them. He took brutal austerity, union-busting, and upward wealth transfer and wrapped them in the warm glow of patriotism, family, faith, and “morning in America.” He emoted optimism while gutting the very economic foundations of middle- and working-class life.

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. Vance, for all his faults, knows how to lean into that populist register. In a contest of emotional contrast, Newsom risks looking like the out-of-touch elite. Quite an accomplishment against Vance.
Reagan fucking LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH.

Americans bought the lie.
 
No one claimed there’s a formal Newsom 2028 campaign underway, but when posters say things like “he stepped into the Democratic void” or praise him for “fighting back” just because he gave a polished TV address, that signals something.

There’s clearly an appetite among some liberals for someone like Newsom: polished, telegenic, and willing to spar with Republicans on camera. That might feel like leadership in this moment, but the concern Calheel raised, and that I share, is that this kind of performative slickness isn’t just an aesthetic issue. It’s a deeper warning sign about how someone might govern, who they’ll prioritize, and whether they have real convictions or are just following the polling.

We’ve been here before.
So, in this community, you can’t name a 2028 Gavin Newsom supporter.
 
No one claimed there’s a formal Newsom 2028 campaign underway, but when posters say things like “he stepped into the Democratic void” or praise him for “fighting back” just because he gave a polished TV address, that signals something.

There’s clearly an appetite among some liberals for someone like Newsom: polished, telegenic, and willing to spar with Republicans on camera. That might feel like leadership in this moment, but the concern Calheel raised, and that I share, is that this kind of performative slickness isn’t just an aesthetic issue. It’s a deeper warning sign about how someone might govern, who they’ll prioritize, and whether they have real convictions or are just following the polling.

We’ve been here before.


IMO, you and Cal misunderstand the position of those who’ve given credit to Newsom.

We are literally at the 7:30 mark of the first quarter of Trump’s tenure. It’s discouraging that Dems haven’t yet found any voices to engage with Trump’s authoritarianism. It’s great that someone—ANYONE— has stepped up for the moment.

That’s all that’s being said.

That’s not an endorsement of Newsom.

Hell, it appears that most people here haven’t followed his recent dalliances with MAGA bro culture nor his anti-Trans comments. If they were aware—as Cal and I am (and perhaps others…again, ive not read every comment)—then I assume most posters would find it questionable at best (in a slimy politician sorta way), if not outright offensive, and would not support him.

Newsom isn’t going to be the only Dem to challenge Trump’s barrage of authoritarian policies over the next 3-plus years. There will be others, invariably some that won’t have the baggage that Gavin carries.
 
Who would you vote for if your choices were Jon Stewart or JD Vance?
If you're saying I have to vote and I have to vote for one of those two....I can't answer that question. My gut says Vance, but that's based on my perception of Stewart as a hyper-emotional, Leftist type of person that I have never, ever EVER considered for any office.
I'd have to watch them campaign, debate, etc and decide.
 
If you're saying I have to vote and I have to vote for one of those two....I can't answer that question. My gut says Vance, but that's based on my perception of Stewart as a hyper-emotional, Leftist type of person that I have never, ever EVER considered for any office.
I'd have to watch them campaign, debate, etc and decide.


 
Back
Top