Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 423
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
I don't think either of them needed Newsom to motivate them. They both have eyes on higher office, especially Prtizker, and nothing would make them more popular than to be arrested. I am as cynical about these kind of PR moves with those two as I am with Newsom.
Click to expand...
I promise you Kathy Hochul does not have eyes on a higher office. Not unless she's loco. She's going to have her hands full to win re-election as a Dem in NY
 
superrific said:
I promise you Kathy Hochul does not have eyes on a higher office. Not unless she's loco. She's going to have her hands full to win re-election as a Dem in NY
Click to expand...
She has tacked right -- well she has tacked all over the place actually. Having trouble winning New York may or may not be disqualifying for winning higher office.

In any event, if Donald Trump were to arrest her, she'd likely gain 20 points popularity overnight and cruise to re-election. So, my point still stands about these politicians affirmatively wanting to be arrested.
 
Paine said:
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.
Click to expand...
Considering your critique of the Democratic party writ large as well as recent democratic election results, a cynic might read this to mean you're saying the Dems need better liars...
 
Kingpin said:
I really like Stein in his interview. Does he have a chance at the national level?
Click to expand...
My guess is that he has aspirations of running at the national level, but he doesn’t currently have the name recognition that other potential candidates have.
 
Calheel said:
I don't think either of them needed Newsom to motivate them. They both have eyes on higher office, especially Prtizker, and nothing would make them more popular than to be arrested. I am as cynical about these kind of PR moves with those two as I am with Newsom.
Click to expand...
And the left-wing circular firing squad rearranges itself to take down a few others who speak out publicly against Trump.
 
EyeballKid said:
And the left-wing circular firing squad rearranges itself to take down a few others who speak out publicly against Trump.
Click to expand...
I am just not a big fan of the "arrest me" schtick for politicians. Whether that comes from Newsom or Pritzker. It is not the biggest issue in the world, and I am not shooting anyone. As I have made very clear on this thread, I think Newsom's issues run far greater than his fake Jacob Soboroff interview "arrest me" schtick. But I am also not going to get stoked that other politicians are now imitating this fake tough guy routine.
 
Now I see how annoying and frustrating it has to be for Dem leaders to have to deal with some folks who call themselves Democrats. Some people can't get out of their own way.
 
Calheel said:
I am just not a big fan of the "arrest me" schtick for politicians. Whether that comes from Newsom or Pritzker. It is not the biggest issue in the world, and I am not shooting anyone. As I have made very clear on this thread, I think Newsom's issues run far greater than his fake Jacob Soboroff interview "arrest me" schtick. But I am also not going to get stoked that other politicians are now imitating this fake tough guy routine.
Click to expand...
Thing is, why do you give a shit whether it’s a publicity stunt or not? And how do you determine whether it’s 100% disingenuous tough-guy schtick, or whether there’s some degree of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is?

We need a mass movement of politicians willing to push back in ways that they haven’t yet.

If the LA ICE raids and subsequent raids in other cities provide a spark for Ds to start raising their fucking voices, so be it—I don’t give a shit whether it’s Newsom, Hochul, Pritzker, Booker, AOC, or whoever. We need more publicity stunts just like this.
 
Paine said:
Snoop, I get that you weren’t trying to offer a full strategy in your original post. But when someone says Democrats shouldn’t try to win over right-leaning voters and should just focus on “getting their people to the polls plus a few folks from the middle,” it implies a strategic posture; one that is, frankly, reactive and defensive. That’s what I was responding to.

You say I’m projecting my frustrations with the mainstream Democratic Party onto your post. Maybe. But your analysis does mirror the kind of minimalist thinking that dominates institutional Democratic politics: treat elections as turnout operations, ignore the cultural terrain, avoid confronting hard questions about economic messaging, and hope the other side flames out.

My assumption was that anyone talking seriously about 2028 would need to wrestle with the deeper political forces reshaping the electorate. If you’re writing off the right-wing base and limiting the battleground to base + middle, you’re reinforcing the same failed 2024 framework. That wasn’t just a fluke of Biden dropping out. It was a systemic failure of message, meaning, and connection. The outcome revealed just how brittle the mainstream approach had become.

Regarding the “connection” piece: you keep shifting what you mean by “connection,” which makes your argument hard to follow and less convincing.

At first, you framed connection as a deep, emotional, two-way bond. Something Trump uniquely maintains by constantly affirming his supporters’ identity and grievances. You said others like Vance only have a one-way relationship, telling voters what they want to hear but lacking real connection.

But then you pivot to saying connection means getting voters to turn out and act on a candidate’s behalf, which is a much looser, instrumental definition that any politician can achieve if they motivate turnout.

These two definitions are very different. If connection is just about turnout and political action, then why do you insist Trump has it uniquely while others don’t?

As I’ve said, voters don’t need a genuine emotional bond to be moved by a candidate: they need a credible signal that their concerns and identity are understood and represented. That’s how political power is built.

Overall, you’re right that not all political “connection” (in the original, emotional sense) is deep or lasting. But that’s the point. Most politicians don’t even try to forge the kind of symbolic, identity-rooted connection that makes voters feel seen. Trump does/did, and now others on the right are learning how to copy it. Unless Democrats stop thinking like managers of coalitions and start thinking like builders of political meaning, they’ll keep playing catch-up in this landscape.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Dems should try to win over right-wing voters in any scale because I think it's largely a fool's errand...those voters aren't up for grabs unless the Democratic Party is willing to start trading in bigotry and marginalization of minorities. I see very little to suggest that Dems could successfully court these voters without giving up the soul of the party by essentially abandoning the minority groups that currently make up the core of Dem support. While I think these voters are motivated by economic concerns, I don't think they're (a) open to realistic economic solutions and (b) willing to prioritize realistic economic solutions over oppressing minorities. I'm all for expanding the potential voter base for the Dems, but I don't think you get there by reaching out to right-wing voters. These voters have made it clear what they prioritize and it is anathema to my view of America.

If Dems are to expand the potential voter baser for the party, it almost certainly has to come from disengaged folks who don't vote but who can be convinced to do so because they believe that Dems offer a solution for the problems we're facing. I don't see a future in trying to convince folks who want to go back to the 1950s (or 1850s) that the Dems have anything to offer them.

I have not shifted what I mean by "connection", because until my last post I had not defined it. You read connection as "a deep, emotional, two-way bond" because that's what you desire from a politican, not becuase of anything I said. Vance doesn't connect with voters because he doesn't motivate them to actually support him or to go to the polls. The most he can offer them is to tell them what they want to hear and they like it...but that's as far as it goes. Trump has connection with the base because he can motivate them to act...he gets them to rallies, he gets them to the polls, and he gets them purchase all sorts of stupid shit.

Again, I've made essentially no statement on how Dems should go about rebuilding as a party into one that can win elections at the national level (POTUS + Congressional majorities) as it's not a discussion I'm interested in at the moment. But that doesn't mean we should learn the wrong lessons from Pubs and end up chasing voter blocks and messages that benefit neither the party nor the country.
 
So is Senator Padilla getting arrested a publicity stunt? I am not being facetious; I do not know anything about Sen. Padilla except that he is from CA.

If it is a publicity stunt, is that OK?
 
Paine said:
You’re doing two things at once here: changing definitions midstream while also pretending not to engage in strategic conversation, even though your framework clearly implies a strategy.

From the beginning, I’ve been using “connection” in the emotional and symbolic sense: something visceral, narrative-driven, and trust-building. That’s what this entire discussion about Newsom has been about: whether he can emotionally connect with people who are skeptical of the Democratic Party.

At first, you engaged with this definition of connection. Then, you brought forth a totally different, more instrumental definition: basically, whether a politician can get people to show up and vote and whether they buy merch.

You say you hadn’t defined “connection” until your last post, but you sure acted like I had the wrong definition the whole time. That implies you were operating with your own criteria all along. And now that I’ve been talking about a type of emotional resonance that clearly explains Trump’s appeal (and Reagan’s, and to some extent even Obama’s), you’re trying to pivot the conversation to turnout metrics and merchandise sales. But that’s just a narrower way of dodging the deeper question: who makes people feel like they matter?

Your framing of white working-class or conservative-leaning voters as primarily driven by hate is convenient. It saves you the trouble of asking harder questions about why the Democratic Party has failed to reach them, even when it’s offered good-sounding policies. It also lets you sidestep the question of political storytelling; of whether Democrats have anyone who can talk to disillusioned Americans in a way that feels authentic, compelling, and rooted in moral language.
Click to expand...
1. I have no dog in this particular fight, but I will agree with your larger point, at least in part. Sometimes there is value in talking to conservative voters even if you can't win any of them specifically. They might not be interested, but maybe their friends are. Or someone is watching Fox News at the doctors' office. This isn't a short-term play: if you show up on Fox News in October before the election, it's too late. We need to be on Fox News now. Sure they will pillory our side, but just present our ideas. They might break through. Maybe some MAGA is feeling a bit betrayed by the tariffs or the deportations of their friends or DOGE axed their jobs. They think, "well, too bad the Dems are only for trans and illegals." Then maybe they see Pete on Fox News and it clicks -- hey, wait, the Dems aren't like that at all!

You can't convince who you don't talk to. Here I think we are confusing a campaign strategy for an electoral one. If a Dem campaign doesn't want to go on Fox after Labor Day in an election year, fine. I can see that. But in January, speak to people. It's not clear that this will work, but it's low cost.

If we aren't there, they can make up any old shit and assign that to us as our position. They will probably do that anyway, but it's harder if there's someone in their face saying, "that's not what I believe, here's what I believe."

2. But come on, dude: our framing of white working class voters as primarily driven by hate is not convenient. It is based on every single thing we see. Literally all of MAGA is hate and xenophobia. America First. Tariffs for made in America. Foreigners get out. Deport all the illegals except the white ones. Trans trans trans every day. They are eating the pets. Kids go to school as Johnny and come back as Janey. Etc. etc.

Can you tell me one positive thing that MAGA offers to its base? Jobs doesn't count because that's obviously an empty promise and it's not true anyway. It's all grievance, all the time. Look at the people on this board. Which one of them has any ideas other than turn the clock back before the minorities and women had any real rights?

Why are they renaming the army bases after confederate traitors? You know the reason. Why are they kicking trans people out of the military? You know. Why are they rewriting American history, preventing anyone from ever talking about homosexuality? These small issues can be a window into preferences. Because they don't matter much, they are a perfect opportunity for someone like Trump to deliver for his base. And what does that base want? You know.

3. I know there are responses. They turn to hate because they see no future, but if we offered them an economic program some might bite. Not all of them are motivated this way. They are never going to come to our side if we just ignore them as deplorables. I get it -- none of those arguments are provably wrong. Maybe some are good.

But don't insult everyone's intelligence by saying that we're not principled in our estimation of the other side. Have you seen the studies? The factors that have been shown to be correlated with (and explanatory of) Trump support are: a) racial animus; b) browning of county of residence; c) attachment to traditional gender roles. There are dozens of these studies.

If you don't think that tells the whole story, fine, but it's not "convenient"
 
Calheel said:
Of course it is a publicity stunt.
Click to expand...
All of politics is a publicity stunt.

What do you think the Selma march was? It sure as hell wasn't a friendly stroll, and there was no compelling reason why they needed to take that bridge. Oh, and the press just happened to be invited. It's almost as if the purpose was to expose the oppression and brutality inherent in the system.
 
superrific said:
All of politics is a publicity stunt.

What do you think the Selma march was? It sure as hell wasn't a friendly stroll, and there was no compelling reason why they needed to take that bridge. Oh, and the press just happened to be invited. It's almost as if the purpose was to expose the oppression and brutality inherent in the system.
Click to expand...
MLK picked the march in Birmingham because he knew Bull Connor would show his ass on national TV
 
superrific said:
All of politics is a publicity stunt.

What do you think the Selma march was? It sure as hell wasn't a friendly stroll, and there was no compelling reason why they needed to take that bridge. Oh, and the press just happened to be invited. It's almost as if the purpose was to expose the oppression and brutality inherent in the system.
Click to expand...
If you are comparing Alex Padilla's stunt to the Selma March, I don't know what to say to you.
 
Calheel said:
I am just not a big fan of the "arrest me" schtick for politicians. Whether that comes from Newsom or Pritzker. It is not the biggest issue in the world, and I am not shooting anyone. As I have made very clear on this thread, I think Newsom's issues run far greater than his fake Jacob Soboroff interview "arrest me" schtick. But I am also not going to get stoked that other politicians are now imitating this fake tough guy routine.
Click to expand...
And if Trump ever got arrested his supporters would go ballistic and be the streets. And I don’t mean as President
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
If you are comparing Alex Padilla's stunt to the Selma March, I don't know what to say to you.
Click to expand...
You could say, "good point," instead of that passive-aggressive non-response.

The Selma March was in fact a big event, much bigger than Alex Padilla. True. On the other hand, it was much, much more difficult in those days to get peoples' attention with a solo act. You needed huge crowds because there was no such thing as going viral.

But if you prefer a different example, how about the monks who burned themselves alive over Vietnam?

All politics is about getting attention. If that wasn't true throughout history, it sure as hell is true now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top