Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[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.

 

[Zoo_View]

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.

 

[Calheel]

Who would you vote for if your choices were Jon Stewart or JD Vance?

 

[Paine]

Reagan fucking LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH.

Americans bought the lie.

Exactly. That’s the point.

Reagan’s policies were disastrous for working people, but he won many of them over by making them feel seen, hopeful, and part of something bigger. The problem isn’t just that he lied, it’s that he lied well. He understood that in American politics, especially presidential politics, emotional resonance often matters more than policy specifics.

If Democrats think voters will choose the truth just because it’s technically better, they’ve forgotten how politics works. Newsom might have facts and polish, but if he can’t communicate feeling, if he can’t connect on a gut level with people who don’t already agree with him, he’ll be steamrolled by someone who can.

We can’t afford another campaign where the Democrat is technically right but emotionally hollow. That’s the lesson.

 

[Paine]

So, in this community, you can’t name a 2028 Gavin Newsom supporter.

You’re either missing the point or deliberately avoiding it.

Again, the issue isn’t whether anyone explicitly said “I support Gavin Newsom in 2028.” It’s that several posters praised his address as a bold, decisive moment of leadership, and some even framed it as filling a Democratic void. That kind of praise, especially in this political environment, is the soft launch of a candidacy. It reveals what people are primed to respond to.

My argument is that Newsom’s performative polish might appeal to media-minded liberals, but it risks alienating the working-class and disaffected voters Democrats desperately need. Not exactly a theoretical worry.

So whether people are ready to say “Newsom 2028” out loud or not, there’s clearly a segment of this community ready to treat him as the de facto face of the party.

 

[EyeballKid]

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.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

 

[Calheel]

. There will be others, invariably some that won’t have the baggage that Gavin carries.

I hope so. Because I really don’t like to be on the same side of any issue as @Paine and @Ramrouser

 

[Paine]

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 discouraging in 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.

Fair enough. I get the impulse to cheer someone for showing signs of life against Trump. No one’s blaming people for wanting a fighter.

But the concern, for me at least, isn’t just Newsom in a vacuum. it’s what happens when the first guy to throw a punch becomes the de facto face of the opposition. That early momentum shapes the field. If we don’t question who steps up and why, we risk locking in the same elite, image-driven politics that lost us 2024 in the first place.

I guess I’ll just say I welcome the fight, but I’m holding off for better fighters.

 

[Paine]

I hope so. Because I really don’t like to be on the same side of any issue as @Paine and @Ramrouser

OTOH, if the three of us are all saying the same thing, there might be some merit to it.

 

[Calheel]

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.

Column: Dear Jon Stewart, please run for president

"He has the right principles and policies, understands the media environment, hasn’t been consumed by our corrupt political system, has impressive political and rhetorical skills and is broadly popular among leftists, liberals and independents."

www.dailytarheel.com

Sign the Petition

Petition to Urge Jon Stewart to Consider a 2028 Presidential Run

www.change.org

 

[Zoo_View]

You’re either missing the point or deliberately avoiding it.

Again, the issue isn’t whether anyone explicitly said “I support Gavin Newsom in 2028.” It’s that several posters praised his address as a bold, decisive moment of leadership, and some even framed it as filling a Democratic void. That kind of praise, especially in this political environment, is the soft launch of a candidacy. It reveals what people are primed to respond to.

My argument is that Newsom’s performative polish might appeal to media-minded liberals, but it risks alienating the working-class and disaffected voters Democrats desperately need. Not exactly a theoretical worry.

So whether people are ready to say “Newsom 2028” out loud or not, there’s clearly a segment of this community ready to treat him as the de facto face of the party.

Oh, BS.

That’s my only response.

 

[EyeballKid]

Fair enough. I get the impulse to cheer someone for showing signs of life against Trump. No one’s blaming people for wanting a fighter.

But the concern, for me at least, isn’t just Newsom in a vacuum. it’s what happens when the first guy to throw a punch becomes the de facto face of the opposition. That early momentum shapes the field. If we don’t question who steps up and why, we risk locking in the same elite, image-driven politics that lost us 2024 in the first place.

I guess I’ll just say I welcome the fight, but I’m holding off for better fighters.

Meh.

Obama was a nobody until some time in 2007.

Trump was a laughingstock (not yet a national threat) until well into 2016.

And no one knew what the hell was going on with the D nomination last year until the debates. (Which was obviously a disaster, of course—but the point is that potential candidates weren’t even really discussed until a couple months before November.)

 

[Zoo_View]

Who would you vote for if your choices were Jon Stewart or JD Vance?

60% of “Independents” and “moderates?”

JD Vance

 

[Zoo_View]

Exactly. That’s the point.

Reagan’s policies were disastrous for working people, but he won many of them over by making them feel seen, hopeful, and part of something bigger. The problem isn’t just that he lied, it’s that he lied well. He understood that in American politics, especially presidential politics, emotional resonance often matters more than policy specifics.

If Democrats think voters will choose the truth just because it’s technically better, they’ve forgotten how politics works. Newsom might have facts and polish, but if he can’t communicate feeling, if he can’t connect on a gut level with people who don’t already agree with him, he’ll be steamrolled by someone who can.

We can’t afford another campaign where the Democrat is technically right but emotionally hollow. That’s the lesson.

You know the lies were:

• Welfare Queen - that was a (1) BLACK (2) woman with (3) children (more little negroids that us white people will have to support.
• Commies, commies, commies
• Cutting taxes will pay for themselves in increased revenues (that lie persists to today)

What we can’t afford are the 1-2% of Leftists who think Hillary equals Trump.

 

[Zoo_View]

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.

Anyone that would vote for JD Vance over Jon Stewart has already voted for Trump in ‘16, ‘20, and ‘24; and, believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

 

[dukeman92]

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.

It signals that we’re glad someone is fighting back. Not everything has to have some underlying meaning.

Bravo, you just described Pete Buttigieg. That should be the guy.

 

[dukeman92]

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.

Shocker.

 

[farce©]

You’re either missing the point or deliberately avoiding it.

My argument is that Newsom’s performative polish might appeal to media-minded liberals, but it risks alienating the working-class and disaffected voters Democrats desperately need. Not exactly a theoretical worry.

You’re talking about the same people who fell hook, line, and sinker for a polished media pro in Donald Trump (they knew him as a reality TV star where he played a successful business mogul, ffs) but you are concerned those same people will be alienated by “Newsom’s performative polish?”

GTFOH

 

[ZenMode]

Anyone that would vote for JD Vance over Jon Stewart has already voted for Trump in ‘16, ‘20, and ‘24; and, believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

"..... This concludes our PSA on why generalizations are a bad idea and don't work."

I have never voted for Trump, would never vote for Trump and absolutely do not believe the 2020 election, nor the 2024 election, was stolen.