Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

[Paine]

Bernie didn’t come close to explaining how to fix things. The closest Bernie came to a fix was blaming free trade…….so, was Bernie’s fix tariffs?

Bernie was a new version of the angry vitriol of “They stole yer jerbs.”

You’re right that Bernie didn’t offer a detailed, technocratic “fix” for everything, but that’s not what most people are actually looking for in a political leader.

What he did offer was a clear moral framework: a sense that the system is rigged by elites against ordinary people, and that government should stand on the side of workers and communities, not billionaires and multinational corporations. That message landed because it named people’s pain, validated their experience, and gave them a sense of shared struggle.

That’s not the same as Trump’s scapegoating or empty slogans. It’s not “They stole your jobs,” it’s: you deserve better, and we can fight for it together.

No politician has “all the answers.” Clinton didn’t. Obama didn’t. Biden didn’t. But what they all had, for better or worse, was a story that made emotional sense to the moment. Bernie offered something similar but from a different direction: a populist narrative that treated working people with moral seriousness, and didn’t talk down to them or pretend everything was fine. That emotional core mattered more than any bullet point in a white paper.

At the end of the day, people aren’t choosing between white papers. They’re choosing between stories. Bernie’s story (flawed, incomplete, whatever you want to call it) felt like it came from someone who was on their side. And that emotional connection matters just as much as policy detail.

 

[Paine]

Agreed. For this to happen we will need a 2008 sea change in politics. Saying that and making any substantive changes requires a compliant Congress. Without a super majority. The obstructionist Pubs will make that politician look like a liar, unfortunately

Absolutely, the structural obstacles are immense. Without a compliant Congress or supermajority, even the best political intentions can get stymied. The obstructionist tactics of the GOP and entrenched interests are real and relentless.

A lot of liberals acknowledge that our institutions desperately need change. But too often, that acknowledgment comes with a kind of learned helplessness. They see the problems clearly, from corporate influence to legislative gridlock, but they don’t offer a concrete strategy to build the broad coalition needed to actually change those institutions.

Without a vision for how to organize working people, professionals, and communities around shared power and common purpose, calls for institutional reform can feel abstract or impossible. The system feels immovable, so the response becomes managing expectations or focusing on incremental fixes.

I think the starting point has to be building a powerful narrative that connects with people’s lived experiences; one that moves beyond technocratic fixes and acknowledges their pain, hopes, and dignity. That kind of emotional resonance creates a movement that can push to change the composition and culture of Congress itself.

This is where the right has been several steps ahead. Decades ago, Republicans realized they couldn’t dismantle the New Deal or the regulatory state just by debating policy. They needed to build a broad coalition grounded in emotion: resentment, pride, fear, grievance. They told a story about who was winning, who was losing, and why. That story wasn’t always honest, but it was powerful. And it gave them the political muscle to seize institutions and shape the future.

In other words, winning big on policy requires first winning big on political imagination and solidarity. Without that, even a supermajority risks being ineffective or complacent. The narrative fuels the movement, and the movement is what can eventually reshape institutions.

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I think something like this could be a powerful political message for the left:

“You didn’t fail, the people in power did. They made decisions that hollowed out your town, your industry, your future. They told you it was inevitable. But it wasn’t. And it still isn’t. We can build a country where working people matter again, where investment flows to our communities, where the work we do is respected, and where no one is disposable.”

Dems say this all the time. Then Rs find a woman with testicles and the working class chooses to vote for the ruling class responsible for hollowing out their towns. Then you blame the Dems

 

[Paine]

Dems say this all the time. Then Rs find a woman with testicles and the working class chooses to vote for the ruling class responsible for hollowing out their towns. Then you blame the Dems

Sure, Democrats say parts of that message at times. What they don’t do is lead with it. They don’t embody it, fight for it, or build a movement around it. And when someone like Bernie did try, many liberals dismissed him as unserious or too radical.

Let’s be real: Democrats don’t consistently say this kind of thing. Obama dabbled in it in 2008. Biden flirted with it in 2020. But Clinton? Harris? Most of the party establishment? They don’t talk like this at all.

Populism can’t just be a costume you put on in Scranton and take off in Georgetown. If you want to win people’s trust, you have to pick a side and stay on it.

If voters don’t believe you’ll fight for them, they’ll go with the person who at least acts like they give a damn, even if it’s a con. That’s not on the voters.

 

[Calheel]

How many times do people have to tell you it was an address to Cali and not the Nation?

You are going to be really bummed when you learn the truth about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, too.

By the way, what is the title of this thread?

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

It’s in every milquetoast speech at every convention.

Harris consistently talked about how policies impacted working and middle class families. Maybe she didn’t mean it but you suggest that doesn’t matter. She conveyed that she cared. Why didn’t these mythical salt of the earth people yearning for meaning and belonging hear it? In your eyes it can’t be because they are stupid racist or misogynist, so what was it?

 

[Kingpin]

You are going to be really bummed when you learn the truth about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, too.

By the way, what is the title of this thread?

The address was to the state of California, the message was directed at anyone who would listen and very relevant. And for some inexplicable reason, this really bothers you. Most think it was the right thing to do. Obviously you do not, but that’s you.

 

[Paine]

It’s in every milquetoast speech at every convention.

Harris consistently talked about how policies impacted working and middle class families. Maybe she didn’t mean it but you suggest that doesn’t matter. She conveyed that she cared. Why didn’t these mythical salt of the earth people yearning for meaning and belonging hear it? In your eyes it can’t be because they are stupid racist or misogynist, so what was it?

You’re still thinking about this in terms of surface-level messaging: “Did she say the words?” But emotional connection doesn’t work that way. It’s not about whether a candidate mentions working families, it’s about whether people feel that the message comes from a place of conviction, not calculation.

A convention speech isn’t enough. Most voters don’t even watch them. They build impressions over time through tone, body language, who you surround yourself with, and what fights you pick. Emotional connection is about resonance, not resume.

When Bernie said “the system is rigged,” it landed because people believed he believed it. It felt authentic. When most establishment Democrats say similar things, it feels like polling-driven ventriloquism. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it does mean the message doesn’t stick.

You’re asking: “Why didn’t these voters hear it?” The better question is: Why didn’t it land? The answer isn’t always prejudice. Sometimes people just don’t believe the messenger. That’s not their failure, it’s the political class’s failure to earn back trust.

 

[Zoo_View]

Sure, Democrats say parts of that message at times. What they don’t do is lead with it. They don’t embody it, fight for it, or build a movement around it. And when someone like Bernie did try, many liberals dismissed him as unserious or too radical.

Let’s be real: Democrats don’t consistently say this kind of thing. Obama dabbled in it in 2008. Biden flirted with it in 2020. But Clinton? Harris? Most of the party establishment? They don’t talk like this at all.

Populism can’t just be a costume you put on in Scranton and take off in Georgetown. If you want to win people’s trust, you have to pick a side and stay on it.

If voters don’t believe you’ll fight for them, they’ll go with the person who at least acts like they give a damn, even if it’s a con. That’s not on the voters.

You’re assuming that Americans want leftist populism.

Do Americans?

Does leftist populism include LGBTQ rights? Abortion rights? Civil rights?

 

[heelinhell]

You’re still thinking about this in terms of surface-level messaging: “Did she say the words?” But emotional connection doesn’t work that way. It’s not about whether a candidate mentions working families, it’s about whether people feel that the message comes from a place of conviction, not calculation.

A convention speech isn’t enough. Most voters don’t even watch them. They build impressions over time through tone, body language, who you surround yourself with, and what fights you pick. Emotional connection is about resonance, not resume.

When Bernie said “the system is rigged,” it landed because people believed he believed it. It felt authentic. When most establishment Democrats say similar things, it feels like polling-driven ventriloquism. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it does mean the message doesn’t stick.

You’re asking: “Why didn’t these voters hear it?” The better question is: Why didn’t it land? The answer isn’t always prejudice. Sometimes people just don’t believe the messenger. That’s not their failure, it’s the political class’s failure to earn back trust.

The Dem "messenger" has always fallen short in bumper sticker rhetoric but delivered in governance that has improved the lives of working and middle class families.

Unfortunately, bumper sticker rhetoric seems to be trumping good governance when it comes to improving the lives of American families.

I have repeated here ad nauseum that Dems suck at messaging but are excellent at governing; and GQPers are very good at messaging but are incompetent when it comes to governing.

I wish Dems could be excellent at both, but if it comes down to a choice of the two, I choose aligning with good governance over good messaging... but that's just me

 

[Callatoroy]

Gavin Newsom and his fake-centrist turn, and his fake Republican platforming podcast, and his fake central-casting looks, and his fake French Laundry-hypocritical ass can go straight to hell for all I care. If Democrats nominate this fake opportunist for President in 2028, we deserve the shellacking we rightfully will receive.

The fact that many on this board can't see him for what he is, doesn't bode well for the next potus election. He was weak during the fire in LA and he is weak regarding the rioting. The left wing of the dem party can't seem to come to grips with the fact that their stance on illegal immigration is unpopular and a losing issue for them.

 

[Paine]

You’re assuming that Americans want leftist populism.

Do Americans?

Does leftist populism include LGBTQ rights? Abortion rights? Civil rights?

I’m not assuming every American wants left populism. I’m saying a lot more people are open to it than the current Democratic leadership seems to understand.

And yes, it absolutely includes LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, and civil rights. But it frames them as part of a broader fight for dignity, power, and respect for all people, especially those who’ve been screwed by the system, whether that’s because of their race, gender, orientation, or class.

The problem is, Democrats often silo these issues instead of integrating them into a story that connects with people’s everyday material lives. The right doesn’t make that mistake; they tie their culture war talking points directly to a story about betrayal, decline, and stolen power. It’s bullshit, but it resonates emotionally.

Left populism doesn’t mean abandoning social justice. It means anchoring it in a broader politics of solidarity. One that names the villains, lifts up the powerless, and fights like hell for a country where no one is disposable.

 

[Paine]

The Dem "messenger" has always fallen short in bumper sticker rhetoric but delivered in governance that has improved the lives of working and middle class families.

Unfortunately, bumper sticker rhetoric seems to be trumping good governance when it comes to improving the lives of American families.

I have repeated here ad nauseum that Dems suck at messaging but are excellent at governing; and GQPers are very good at messaging but are incompetent when it comes to governing.

I wish Dems could be excellent at both, but if it comes down to a choice of the two, I choose aligning with good governance over good messaging... but that's just me

I get where you’re coming from, but I think this framing (good governance vs. good messaging) misses something important.

First, it’s not either-or. You can’t govern well if you don’t win. And you don’t win if people don’t feel like you’re truly fighting for them. Messaging isn’t just “bumper stickers,” it’s how people experience your leadership, your values, and your priorities. It’s how you earn permission to govern in the first place.

Second, the assumption that Democrats have consistently delivered for working and middle class families is…debatable. Yes, there have been important gains. But there’s also been decades of wage stagnation, rising inequality, unaffordable housing, crumbling infrastructure, and collapsing trust in public institutions, much of it under bipartisan consensus. If people feel abandoned, that’s not a messaging failure. That’s a deeper issue of credibility.

The right isn’t winning just because they’re good at slogans. They’re winning because they tell a story, however false, that feels emotionally true to people. If we dismiss that as “rhetoric,” we’re misunderstanding what politics is: a contest over meaning, trust, and belonging.

Democrats don’t need just slicker ads or better bumper stickers. They need to speak in a voice that feels rooted, moral, and unafraid to name the villains.

 

[1moretimeagain]

 

[Zoo_View]

You’re still thinking about this in terms of surface-level messaging: “Did she say the words?” But emotional connection doesn’t work that way. It’s not about whether a candidate mentions working families, it’s about whether people feel that the message comes from a place of conviction, not calculation.

A convention speech isn’t enough. Most voters don’t even watch them. They build impressions over time through tone, body language, who you surround yourself with, and what fights you pick. Emotional connection is about resonance, not resume.

When Bernie said “the system is rigged,” it landed because people believed he believed it. It felt authentic. When most establishment Democrats say similar things, it feels like polling-driven ventriloquism. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it does mean the message doesn’t stick.

You’re asking: “Why didn’t these voters hear it?” The better question is: Why didn’t it land? The answer isn’t always prejudice. Sometimes people just don’t believe the messenger. That’s not their failure, it’s the political class’s failure to earn back trust.

Bernie was and is an AGED US Senator from a TINY state who has become a millionaire as a Congressman and Senator. Has he authored or enacted any major legislation in his career?

I lived in Vermont when he was an impoverished mayor.

Amazing how rich he’s become.

 

[Paine]

Bernie was and is an AGED US Senator from a TINY state who has become a millionaire as a Congressman and Senator. Has he authored or enacted any major legislation in his career?

I lived in Vermont when he was an impoverished mayor.

Amazing how rich he’s become.

That’s a familiar line of attack, but it sidesteps the actual discussion we were having: how political messages land with voters, and why emotional resonance matters. Whether you love or hate Bernie, he tapped into something that many Americans, especially younger and working-class ones, felt deeply: that the system was not built for them, and that few people in power seemed to care.

You can list his net worth or his legislative record, but that doesn’t explain why he drew massive crowds, won 22 states in 2016, and built one of the largest small-dollar donor bases in political history. He didn’t do that by dazzling people with insider accomplishments. He did it by making people feel heard and by naming villains that actually wield power, instead of punching down.

If someone making money while still calling out concentrated power disqualifies them, then we should disqualify basically everyone in national politics, including Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Biden. Bernie’s not perfect. But unlike most, he made people feel like he was fighting for them. That matters. That’s what’s been missing.

If the response to a populist who generates trust and energy is “but he owns a house,” that suggests we’re missing the forest for the trees. The left’s challenge isn’t to find a saint. It’s to build a movement rooted in solidarity, not cynicism.

 

[superrific]

Bernie was and is an AGED US Senator from a TINY state who has become a millionaire as a Congressman and Senator. Has he authored or enacted any major legislation in his career?

I lived in Vermont when he was an impoverished mayor.

Amazing how rich he’s become.

Oh, please. Of all the attacks on Bernie, this is the dumbest.

 

[superrific]

And yes, it absolutely includes LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, and civil rights. But it frames them as part of a broader fight for dignity, power, and respect for all people, especially those who’ve been screwed by the system, whether that’s because of their race, gender, orientation, or class.

We just watched Trump win with white working class voters with a message of "they/them." Every conservative on this site constantly wants to talk about trans issues instead of anything else. Politicians all over the county are demagoguing against the "gay agenda" or "woke agenda."

Organizing LGBTQ and working class Americans together is not going to work. It just isn't. One of those groups hates the other; and one is justifiably suspicious of the other.

 

[Zoo_View]

That’s a familiar line of attack, but it sidesteps the actual discussion we were having: how political messages land with voters, and why emotional resonance matters. Whether you love or hate Bernie, he tapped into something that many Americans, especially younger and working-class ones, felt deeply: that the system was not built for them, and that few people in power seemed to care.

You can list his net worth or his legislative record, but that doesn’t explain why he drew massive crowds, won 22 states in 2016, and built one of the largest small-dollar donor bases in political history. He didn’t do that by dazzling people with insider accomplishments. He did it by making people feel heard and by naming villains that actually wield power, instead of punching down.

If someone making money while still calling out concentrated power disqualifies them, then we should disqualify basically everyone in national politics, including Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Biden. Bernie’s not perfect. But unlike most, he made people feel like he was fighting for them. That matters. That’s what’s been missing.

If the response to a populist who generates trust and energy is “but he owns a house,” that suggests we’re missing the forest for the trees. The left’s challenge isn’t to find a saint. It’s to build a movement rooted in solidarity, not cynicism.

Bernie tapped into white working class anger and left-wing anger.

Bernie has yet to offer a solution. He’s good at ginning up anger. He sucks at solving anything.

 

[superrific]

Bernie tapped into white working class anger and left-wing anger.

Bernie has yet to offer a solution. He’s good at ginning up anger. He sucks at solving anything.

Good thing Bernie isn't running.

I mean, Paine isn't suggesting Bernie Sanders be the standard bearer. He's talking about Bernie's political/messaging strategies. Maybe AOC becomes the new Bernie, or maybe someone else emerges.

I don't think "Bernie sucks" is a rejoinder to what Paine is arguing. "Bernie's politics don't work" is an answer.