Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, BS.

That’s my only response.
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...

Shocker. 🙄
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Zoo_View said:
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.
Click to expand...
"..... 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.
 
EyeballKid said:
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.)
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true.

 
Calheel said:
I think you are being incredibly naive on this point.
Click to expand...
Naive and ignorant. Be that as it may, we're on the same side - and splitting hairs about would-be Dem nominees at this point is silly.
Be safe Calheel. We'll get through this...
 
Paine said:
I talked about this dynamic in an earlier post. It’s on page 9.

You’re missing the difference in type of polish. Trump played a “successful outsider” who punched up at elites, even if it was a con. Newsom plays the elite insider who talks down to people while selling competence and vibes.

It’s not about whether someone is slick on camera: it’s about who they appear to fight for. Trump weaponized media savvy to mock liberal technocrats. Newsom is a liberal technocrat. That distinction matters, especially to the disaffected voters Dems keep losing.

If we confuse surface-level media presence with working-class appeal, we’re going to lose the same voters again.
Click to expand...
Agree.
We're all on the same side here... just nitpicking as to the best way forward.
Be well Paine.
I won't put you on "ignore" again...
But I may not read all of your long posts either :cool:
 
sringwal said:
That's not entirely true.

Click to expand...

This^^^
Was there anyone at the 2024 DNC with a killer speech?
Obviously, it was all about Harris/Walz... and nobody could match Obama's 2004 speech... but was there anyone who spoke which stood out? Mayor Pete? Coop? Wes Moore? Warnock? Anybody?
 
I think it is quite interesting that this is now on page 16. Newsom certainly has us talking.

I'll admit that early on I was really impressed with his polish and speaking ability, especially while "in the moment" in interviews and such. But reading this thread I think I'm coming around to understanding he is probably not the guy for 2028. For one, whoever the candidate is in 2028 has to be MUCH more than "Trump bad" and has to connect to the voters that the Democrats seem to have lost - mainly, working class independents - on an emotional level. Newsom is sorta like Romney without being Mormon.

But I think we can legit feel good about Newsom's taking the lead on punching back at Trump - regardless of his motivations - and at the same time have serious reservations about his presidential election chances. In fact I think to echo some of the sentiment on this thread, Newsom's response should be celebrated and provide an example for other Democrat leaders.
 
Centerpiece said:
This^^^
Was there anyone at the 2024 DNC with a killer speech?
Obviously, it was all about Harris/Walz... and nobody could match Obama's 2004 speech... but was there anyone who spoke which stood out? Mayor Pete? Coop? Wes Moore? Warnock? Anybody?
Click to expand...
That is, ironically, also not entirely true.

 
heelwithnoname said:
^^ "Was there anyone at the 2024 DNC with a killer speech?"

Hell I'm a recovering Republican and I was fired up with Michelle Obama's speech...
Click to expand...
Good example... but 2016 and 2024 proves we're not ready to elect a woman pres. Sorry, but it's true.
Trump lost to the only man he ran against. He beat both of the women.

Do you think the Obama name can carry the load in and of itself? Perhaps... but it's the fact that the Dems have tried to run a woman twice and lost to the WORST man on the planet... twice!
 
You are 100% correct unfortunately, and I don't think that Michelle Obama would have a snowball's chance.

BUT she/her speech is a good example of connecting emotionally - albeit in a very friendly environment - which is what I think we're saying Newsom does not do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top