Gavin Newsom addresses the nation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
I realize that it says nothing good about me that I find amusement in juvenile punching down, but since we have been subjected to it for the last decade, it’s funny to see someone punching back.
While I understand where you're coming from, not mocking those who have had unfortunately medical issues should be a Dem principle that is followed no matter who is being discussed. (In reality, it should be a basic human principle, but we know how things are going politically for the last decade.)
 
While I understand where you're coming from, not mocking those who have had unfortunately medical issues should be a Dem principle that is followed no matter who is being discussed. (In reality, it should be a basic human principle, but we know how things are going politically for the last decade.)
Yeah, that’s a really good point, for sure. I do think you’re right. That’s definitely why I realize it says nothing good about me that I found some amusement in it.
 
Fair enough.

I don’t know, man, I think your personal dislike of Newsom is overriding objectivity. If the economy is completely in the tank over the next few years directly as a result of the Republican president and Republican Congress, I think you and I could run at the top of the ticket for the Democratic Party in 2028 and win, much less someone handsome, articulate, and willing to spar with MAGA as Newsom is.
Part of my dislike of Newsom is because I don’t want him to be the nominee because we will lose. So you have it a bit backwards. I’d be much more OK with Newsom if he were the governor of Alabama.
 
I think in this case refraining from using a common metaphor like "rolled over" (one that no one would hesitate to use in almost any situation) just b/c the target of it is wheelchair bound would be more condescending than not using. And anyway, fuck Greg Abbott...
 
There is no effective "working with a divided government" in DC at this point. The Republican Party does not compromise across the aisle (and barely within itself) and so any governing that happens is effectively done by one party alone.

Being able to "work with a divided government" is as pertinent to being POTUS at this point as knowing DOS commands is to using a new computer.
Well sure. If you have the house, senate and Supreme Court, you don’t need to work with divided government. But if you have all of those things, not sure you need any particular training for the position anyway.
 
At least Newsome is publicly getting out front early to reach voters. Dems got caught with their pants around their ankles in 2024, with no contingency plan for Biden.
Personally, I think Pete Buttigieg would be an excellent VP.
So the double white male ticket? Dems haven’t run that since Kerry/Edwards.
 
Dude. Getting elected is the only thing. There's no divided government. Come 2029, Dems are going to be shoving our policies down the GOP's throats they way they have been doing to America. We ain't got time for dicking around, taking years to get something done only to see the Theocratic Court rip it up. Come 2029, we going to be erasing the horrible aberration of the Trump years and if MAGA don't like it, deport their asses. Throw them in Alligator Alcatraz and let them rot. Turnaround is fair play.
First, that is what you want. I seriously doubt it is what the democrats who run things want.

Second, unless the democrats take the senate and house and stack the Supreme Court, they are going to need to work with a divided government to get stuff done. You think the current court will let the democrats have the same free reign when they control the presidency?
 
Part of my dislike of Newsom is because I don’t want him to be the nominee because we will lose. So you have it a bit backwards. I’d be much more OK with Newsom if he were the governor of Alabama.
You don't know that we will definitively lose. Take it from me, as someone who knows a thing or two about the folly of making declarative statements about politics in this day and age. Newsom has every bit as much of a chance of winning as any other Democrat, and maybe more, if he's actually willing and able to be the lone person in the entire Democratic movement to stand up to the advancement of fascism in the United States.
 
You don't know that we will definitively lose. Take it from me, as someone who knows a thing or two about the folly of making declarative statements about politics in this day and age. Newsom has every bit as much of a chance of winning as any other Democrat, and maybe more, if he's actually willing and able to be the lone person in the entire Democratic movement to stand up to the advancement of fascism in the United States.
The people who like Newsom don’t fully appreciate the anti-California sentiment in modern politics. Much harder to win Nevada and Arizona with a California nominee.
 
Governing a one-party state, even a big one, is not good preparation for the presidency. Beshear, Cooper, Whitmer and Shapiro all have more practical skills in working with a divided government.
Newsom is first to into the breach but a Beshear or Shapiro ticket with Whitmer as VP is more likely to win.

Newson's inescapable problem is - "Do you want the rest of the country to be California?" The answer from most Americans will be No. Every opponent's TV ads will have homeless squalor, price of housing, images of crime/violence/unrest, Hollywood types on the screen.
 
There is no effective "working with a divided government" in DC at this point. The Republican Party does not compromise across the aisle (and barely within itself) and so any governing that happens is effectively done by one party alone.

Being able to "work with a divided government" is as pertinent to being POTUS at this point as knowing DOS commands is to using a new computer.
Then, Cooper is your guy. The pubs in NC have been intractable and scheming for a long time.
 
The people who like Newsom don’t fully appreciate the anti-California sentiment in modern politics. Much harder to win Nevada and Arizona with a California nominee.
I'll take your word on that, for sure, because I don't really know much about that angle, but I just have to imagine that all of the long-held notions in politics are evaporating by the day. Again, I just feel that if the economy is doing as godawful as it seems like it could be over the next few years, and if Newsom is willing and able to sustain his continued asskicking of MAGA, and assuming the GOP nominee is someone ultra-unpopular and un-motivating to the base as JD Vnace would be, it's hard for me to believe that even being from California would be a hindrance for Newsom.
 
Well sure. If you have the house, senate and Supreme Court, you don’t need to work with divided government. But if you have all of those things, not sure you need any particular training for the position anyway.
A Dem in the WH without control of both houses of Congress isn't going to achieve anything, no matter how much they try, because as soon as a Dem is in the WH the Republican mantra becomes "obstruct, obstruct, obstruct" at all costs.

The idea that working across the aisle is even a top-10 skill needed for a Dem POTUS candidate is silly because Pubs simply won't work with Dems no matter what. There's simply no right way to approach the topic when everything in the Pubs' political ecosystem is geared toward branding Dems as the enemy and refusing to engage with them in any realistic way.
 
Part of my dislike of Newsom is because I don’t want him to be the nominee because we will lose. So you have it a bit backwards. I’d be much more OK with Newsom if he were the governor of Alabama.
Of course— as you know— a Dem candidate who is governor of Alabama is not an option. Not only because it doesn’t presently exist in reality , but it also wouldn’t exist in theory in modern times. Kentucky and Kansas are the two unicorns that are otherwise DEEP red states with a democratic governor. But then the one issue you have with governors of red states or even red-leaning purple states (like NC) is that those governors generally come across as milquetoast because they have to walk a fine line with their state.

The last Dem presidential nominee from a red state was Al Gore in 2000. And of course he had been Vice President for the previous eight years and had not been in a Tennessee-elected office for eight years. The last Dem presidential nominee from a currently red state who held elected office in that state at the time he ran for president was Bill Clinton in 1992. But Arkansas was not a red state at the time. I don’t think there’s ever been a Dem presidential nominee who held office in a state that was otherwise a red state at the time they were running for president.
 
While I understand where you're coming from, not mocking those who have had unfortunately medical issues should be a Dem principle that is followed no matter who is being discussed. (In reality, it should be a basic human principle, but we know how things are going politically for the last decade.)

I don't even think Newsoms intent was to mock Abbott. "Rolling over for someone" is a popular phrase.
 
I don't even think Newsoms intent was to mock Abbott. "Rolling over for someone" is a popular phrase.
It may not have been initially. The response from his office regarding the use of the phrase was in poor taste.
 
Back
Top