Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[Calheel]

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but this doesn’t strike me as a great point for the argument you’re making.

Reagan came from an era when Californians could win national elections.

 

[SnoopRob]

The classic "all politicians suck" defense of Newsom. There is some merit in that defense. Almost all politicians do suck. But I am not moved by a bosides defense. He is worse than the average politician.

If it takes a jilted lover approach to sound the alarm on Newsom and get people to realize that he should not be the standard bearer for national democratic politics, it is a worthwhile effort.

It's an acknowledgement that (A) all politicians have to make tradeoffs between their personal beliefs & their political stances and (B) all politicians have taken some personal actions which aren't/won't be popular with the electorate.

I would have said you're better than turning that into "bosides/all politicians suck" accusation, but it seems you're not. 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.

You may think you're "sounding the alarm" like some kind of modern day Paul Revere, but you really come off much more like the mentally unstable person yelling about fluoride or chemtrails on the street corner.

 

[Calheel]

It's an acknowledgement that (A) all politicians have to make tradeoffs between their personal beliefs & their political stances and (B) all politicians have taken some personal actions which aren't/won't be popular with the electorate.

I would have said you're better than turning that into "bosides/all politicians suck" accusation, but it seems you're not. 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.

You may think you're "sounding the alarm" like some kind of modern day Paul Revere, but you really come off much more like the mentally unstable person yelling about fluoride or chemtrails on the street corner.

Hey, those fluoride people are actually starting to break through. Not so much on the chemtrails.

 

[Centerpiece]

I've lived in California for 30 years now. This is the first time that I have ever seen a governor make a primetime address to the entire country -- and that includes all of Covid. If the governor had something to say to Californians, he typically did it in the afternoon.

Look, @Centerpiece. It is obvious that you and half this board are looking for a hero. Don't let my Gavin hate rain on your parade. If you want Gavin to be your knight in shining armor, then be my guest. Just don't nominate him to be the 2028 democratic presidential contender.

Actually, to be perfectly honest, Newsom is NOT my knight in shining armor. And if he is in the primary along with folks like Shapiro, Beshears, Whitmer, Cooper, etc. I probably would NOT vote for him.
But if, big if, he is nominated, obviously I’ll vote for him in the general.

What I’m arguing is he should not be thrown under the bus for coming out and speaking against what Trump is doing. I also don’t think too many points should be deducted from him for his hair, his dinner at French Laundry or his take on trans playing women’s sports. (Should points be deducted on those last two items? Yes. But should they be deal breakers and elicit so much hatred? No, not in my POV)

Finally, my contention is: his address was picked up by national media, yes, but it was an address to Californians first, and foremost. Should the national media have picked it up and carried the address? HELL TO THE FUCKING YES! And because the media did that, that’s not on Newsom, nor should it be a mark against him. It should be celebrated that a Dem has gone on record thumbing their nose at trump (finally) and the fact the national, cable networks put it out there, so be it. All the mo’ bettah!

 

[Calheel]

Finally, my contention is: his address was picked up by national media, yes, but it was an address to Californians first, and foremost.

I think you are being incredibly naive on this point.

 

[SnoopRob]

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?

 

[Calheel]

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.

 

[Calheel]

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.

 

[donbosco]

I’d take Trey Crowder in a heartbeat.

You should hear me tawk.

 

[SnoopRob]

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.

 

[SnoopRob]

I am not serious. Obviously, Trey would be a worse candidate than Newsom from a strategery point of view.

We can only hope you're not as serious in the rest of the views you've shared on this thread.

 

[Calheel]

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.

 

[1moretimeagain]

I’m glad Gavin stepped into the Democratic void to fight back against Trump. Some Congress members have done so, but it hasn’t seem to garner the same attention or carry as much weight.

 

[eternalheel]

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.

 

[Healing]

I’m glad Gavin stepped into the Democratic void to fight back against Trump. Some Congress members have done so, but it hasn’t seem to garner the same attention or carry as much weight.

So, you endorse Newsom for 2028?

 

[1moretimeagain]

So, you endorse Newsom for 2028?

Little early for the endorsement IMO

 

[Zoo_View]

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.

 

[eternalheel]

And you have the right to keep up this mindset….

Newsom/Crockett 2028!!!

And your party is polling at 20% on a good day!

Whose party, bucky?

 

[ZenMode]

.
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.

 

[Zoo_View]

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.