Most likely. It will be interesting to see if the GOP turns against populism or gets even weirder and more fringy. If they tuck tail and pretend to be a bunch of Glenn Youngkins they’ll probably win the 2030 midterms easily. But most junior Republicans at this point are groypers. I could see them absolutely missing the layup.
For reasons that are both completely unfair, and still factual, I think we’ll be much much better positioned in 2030 with an Ossoff, Pritzker or Kelly than a Harris. As bad as the last 8 years have been, I can’t imagine what a 2018 midterm would have looked like with 60% of the nation primed to put Hillary in her place. I think the first midterm with a female president may make the 2010 backlash seem tame.
You trust this one. And odds are next will also be on board with protecting physicians following state laws and good ethics. But you never know. I don’t think the executive’s power to do something horrific needs protection.
This is not setting an executive privilege precedent; it is positioning thinking of himself as a future nominee.
If it was really about wanting expansive unconstrained executive privilege? Worse. We got that in the White House now.
That’s backwards. You pass laws in order to make sure bad things don’t happen, not to react to bad things that have gone unaddressed because they were legal.
A nutcase state did pass laws preventing “chemtrails” but so far no one else has joined them or passed other laws to stop stuff that is not even happening.
I readily acknowledge upfront I have no preexisting warm fuzzies for Newsom - more just a sense of distaste for him than anything specific? But being very concerned about making sure that the executive has the sole power to decide if state citizens should be protected from other state overreach when they are following state law - that gives the flavor of someone not of a nature to roll back the expansion of executive powers that Trump has claimed with a compliant SCOTUS. I would be much more reassured about him as potential presidential nominee if he instead acknowledged that executive privilege need be constrained.
Also if I was a doctor working on trans issues in that state I’d be very bothered by the veto. It leaves my fate at the whimsy of whoever is a current or future governor, when a quick signature could reassure at no cost.
Yeah, thankfully I can actually get behind the Newsom bashing this time.
A shitty decision and not his first. I don’t care about that particular exercise in executive authority and as you say there is no telling what the future may bring. It is actually remotely possible in a worst case scenario that some weird perambulation could award the governorship to a real rat bastard. CA as a whole isn’t going red in the very near future. But as I noted in the Newsom recall a couple years back it is actually possible in a successful recall election for somebody with a small minority support (relative to the overall CA electorate) to sneak into the office for a couple of years.
For me, it’s just that he’s once again telling a marginalized group “your rights are less important than my personal aspirations”, because he thinks pandering to bigots will win over the mythical “swing voters” that the Democratic establishment has been obsessed with since James Carville got lucky 34 years ago.
There’s an attitude among establishment Democrats that they have the liberal/progressive vote locked in and don’t have to work to earn their votes because “what else are you gonna do, vote for a Republican?” The “what else”, as we saw in 2016 and 2024, is that they’ll stay home and not vote at all.
Voters - enough of them to make a difference anyway - can tell when they’re being condescended or pandered to. The reason Trump won twice is basically the same reason Obama and AOC and Zohran won - people could tell they believed in what they were saying, not that they were saying it because a focus group or overpaid consultant told them to, and their opponents weren’t offering much more than “I am entitled to your vote, so do as you’re told”.
I live in a state so solidly blue that my vote for president is utterly worthless, but if Newsom were the nominee I’d seriously consider casting a write-in vote for Taylor Swift out of protest.
The reason tRump won the second time (besides possible shenanigans by Elon & Co.) because 36% of the eligible voting population thought not voting was the way to ensure an egregiously unqualified narcissist would not become president. As I said, idiots.
What makes you think those 36% would have voted for a Democrat if they voted? Evidence suggests that group is probably significantly more likely to have voted for Trump than voters.
Vote for me because the other guy is terrible works decently well when you are the minority party. Once you get elected and are unpopular though, you become the guy who people vote against.
Totally disagree - I’m confident the Dems will send out a strong enough kleig-light message to voters that Donald’s veto’ing everything (if the blue wave does happen, to begin with) - with many examples of bills that he struck down - and then assure voters that legislation will actually get passed if the Dems recapture the executive.
Granting for the sake of argument that they’re all idiots, and that they exist, what’s your alternative? Any idiots that exist now will probably still be idiots in 2028, when they’ll presumably continue acting like idiots. What should the non-idiots do, if that’s the reality?
I have no interest in Newsom as a candidate, and I think most democratic primary voters agree, because he has Gordon Gecko energy, and clearly has some affection for the manosphere.
But since 2016 every single democrat has offered the most progressive platform in the party’s history, and every election the same voices scream not good enough. It’s the boy who cried centrist. And considering this moment, it’s absolutely unacceptable.
FWIW there is a nonzero chance that AOC wins the nomination. Pretty sure there would be concerns about pulling the team together then too.
I completely agree with @Smapti that focus group driven ends up not creating a successful political product.
But if a progressive is the nominee or a centrist is the nominee, pretty sure end of Election Day those who supported someone else for the nomination still almost all vote. The ones who don’t vote are the ones who would not bother to vote in a primary either.
“Evidence suggests that group is probably significantly more likely to have voted for tRump” - that hasn’t been my experience. High turnout has been favoring Democrats for the last few decades, as far as I can recall. Of course, turnout hasn’t been high a lot…so it may be a cause of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Back when Sanders looked like he was about to win the 2020 nomination (before Biden dominated the SC primary) there were a lot of centrists that spent years leading up to the primary condemning the 1st Trump admin, then screamed because the party that believes in democracy wasn’t voting with them specifically in mind.
I think you can pretty evenly divide the voting population into partisans, vibe based swing voters, and spoiled babies screaming for attention. It sucks to have to chase after people who genuinely think they’d want to have a beer with Donald Trump, because they have no cohesive philosophy whatsoever, but at least their politics isn’t just one long sustained tantrum.
Primaries are about picking up the voters who don’t participate in primaries. If someone agrees that Trump and Republicans are fascists, then threatens not to vote against it because the nominee wasn’t from their end of the coalition, they should be ignored with prejudice.