You are already there. They are called “cell phones”, not to mention the government with the cameras. So, why not ban cellphones that can record?
Finally you’re talking sense!
Start a new thread please.
Or get the ones that were advertised on the back pages of my comic books growing up … I always wanted one of those X ray glasses!
Yeah not a fan of Newsom … again more feel than anything else … but blocking poorly crafted laws that are created more to virtue signal and pander … that makes me think more of him rather than less. After reading about these I am more open to the possibility he could impress in debates phase.
I feel dislike for Newsom, but I don’t draw conspiracy theories out of every damn thing he does. I don’t care enough about him to pay him that much attention.
Pretty much the same. The main thing I feel when I see him is, “Geez, that guy’s really smarmy.”
Here in the Nevada gubernatorial race, Democrat Aaron Ford is running against the incumbent, Joe Lombardo. Today, I saw a campaign poster that just had a picture of Ford side-by-side with Gavin Newsom, and the only text was “Gavin Newsom endorses Aaron Ford”. Nothing to indicate who you should vote for.
But I guarantee it was put up by the Lombardo people, because Gavin Newsom is the new leftie boogey-man (now that Nancy Pelosi is leaving the scene).
Ossoff absolutely eviscerated his opponent Collins in a debate last night:
This is the kind of fire that the next Democratic presidential candidate needs to bring in the general election. No holds barred. No holding back. I don’t think Vance would have a chance against this.
Nate Silver, Galen Druke, and Clare Malone discuss and rank potential contenders for the Democratic presidential candidacy here:
If you don’t do Apple Podcasts, I’m sure it’s available through other means. The series is “Still Counting.”
I won’t summarize* — you’re either interested in hearing them talk about this, or you aren’t.
The latter 60% of the episode is about this (each of the three makes a “team” via a mock “draft,” with some interesting insights),
(The first 40% is about certain midterm races, e.g. that Minnesota might be a close call).
*except to say that Ossoff is in the top tier. Glad to hear of his debate performance (previous post).
Aw, c’mon, that’s just mean. 
I am interested, but I don’t listen to podcasts. There are other issues regarding listening to podcasts, watching videos, and reading articles that may or may not be paywalled. It is a courtesy to Dopers to summarize what they will find at media links. Anyway, I often cannot access Apple links.
In that spirit, please summarize.
Yeah, same. I find podcasts incredibly inconvenient, too. (And… When I’m reading the dope I’m in a place i can read. And often not in a place where i can make noise.)
I’d be really curious just who he has on his list.
I have requested a transcript for the Still Counting episode. It takes up to 48 hours for delivery. Once I receive it, I will use it to help me create a summary (without violating the Dope’s Terms of Service), including each of the “draft picks.”
Ossoff really feels like the guy who could do the Obama thing and jump the line for the nomination. I think he’s someone who can get progressives excited without spooking moderates.
And then hear them whine about disappointment for years.
I think you can drive yourself crazy worrying about irrational people and how they’ll turn on a candidate once it’s time for someone to actually be the person in power, and not just an outside critic.
In the same way I wouldn’t worry about people who thought Obama was from Kenya, I wouldn’t worry about the people who’d go on to call him a war criminal. Terminally unserious people don’t need to be treated seriously.
I do recommend the podcast. Nate typically has interesting thoughts but he can go off the deep end, and Claire is a really good balance for him.
At any rate here are the draft results. I don’t think Gavin was a great top choice (neither did Nate) but the top was mostly reasonable. I would probably go Ossoff, Pete, and Kelly as the top 3. I was kind of miffed at how high they ranked current first term senate candidates. Would be surprised if any of Talarico, El-Sayed, and Peltola ran.
| 1 | Gavin Newsom |
| 2 | Jon Ossoff |
| 3 | AOC |
| 4 | Kamala Harris |
| 5 | Pete Buttigieg |
| 6 | Mark Kelly |
| 7 | Josh Shapiro |
| 8 | James Talarico |
| 9 | Ruben Gallego |
| 10 | Abdul El-Sayed |
| 11 | Mary Peltola |
| 12 | Ro Khanna |
| 13 | Andy Beshear |
| 14 | Wes Moore |
| 15 | Gretchen Whitmer |
Here is ChatGPT’s summary of the podcast.
I found the October 8, 2026 episode of Still Counting, featuring Galen Druke, Clare Malone, and Nate Silver. It’s an 81-minute discussion, with the 2028 Democratic presidential field as its main event.
One qualification: I was able to find a detailed independent summary of the episode, but not a complete transcript. So I can summarize the candidates and the principal arguments, although I can’t reliably attribute every opinion to an individual host.
The 2028 Democratic presidential draft
The three hosts conduct a kind of fantasy-sports draft, selecting politicians who might compete for the Democratic presidential nomination. The idea is to examine the potential field before the 2026 midterms and revisit it afterward.
The candidates discussed include:
Candidate- Political background
Gavin Newsom-California governor; nationally prominent Democratic figure
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)-New York congresswoman; prominent progressive
Jon Ossoff-Georgia senator; younger generation of Democratic leadership
Pete Buttigieg-Former transportation secretary and 2020 presidential candidate
Kamala Harris-Former vice president and 2024 presidential nominee
Josh Shapiro-Pennsylvania governor
Mark Kelly-Arizona senator and former astronaut
Andy Beshear-Kentucky governor
Gretchen Whitmer-Michigan governor
Wes Moore-Maryland governor
Ruben Gallego-Arizona senator
James Talarico-Texas Democratic politician
Ro Khanna-California congressman
Mary Peltola-Former Alaska congresswoman
Abdul El-Sayed-Michigan progressive politicianThese are names discussed in the draft, not a confirmed list of declared presidential candidates.
What were the main arguments?
The discussion revolves around several competing ideas about the Democratic Party’s future.
1. Progressive enthusiasm versus moderate appeal
AOC represents the possibility of a nominee who mobilizes progressive voters and younger Democrats. Governors such as Shapiro and Beshear represent a different political approach, emphasizing their experience governing politically competitive or Republican-leaning states.
The hosts explore whether Democrats would benefit more from an ideologically energetic candidate or one emphasizing broader cross-party appeal.
2. The importance of biography and presentation
Jon Ossoff receives considerable attention. The discussion includes his public-speaking style, comparisons with Barack Obama, and the fact that he wasn’t a central participant in the Democratic Party’s contentious 2020 presidential primary.
The hosts also consider how candidates’ personal histories, regional identities, and political experience might influence primary voters.
3. The question of Gavin Newsom
Newsom enters the discussion as an established national figure, but the hosts examine whether his visibility necessarily translates into support from Democratic primary voters.
His political identity as California governor, his public opposition to Trump, and his appeal to different Democratic constituencies are relevant to that discussion.
4. Familiar candidates versus emerging figures
Harris and Buttigieg have already participated in national presidential campaigns. Other names, including Talarico, Gallego, Moore, and El-Sayed, illustrate how the field could include politicians with substantially less presidential campaign experience.
The discussion considers whether familiarity with voters is an advantage or whether Democrats might want someone who represents a different political generation.
5. Regional political experience
The inclusion of Beshear, Whitmer, Shapiro, Peltola, and others raises the question of how much importance Democrats should place on candidates’ experience winning elections in different parts of the country.
These are themes in the hosts’ discussion, rather than conclusions established by the podcast.
What about Nate Silver’s statement that there are only two good options?
The official episode description specifically teases Nate’s explanation of why there are only two good candidate options. Unfortunately, the summaries I found don’t establish exactly which two candidates he meant or the full reasoning behind that statement. I don’t want to invent an answer and attribute it to him.
My summary of the episode’s central question
The most interesting feature of the discussion is that the hosts aren’t simply asking who might run in 2028. They’re considering what kind of Democratic Party will emerge from the 2026 elections and what that party might seek in its next presidential nominee.
It’s a discussion about political identity as much as individual politicians.
Thanks. Interesting, no JB Pritzker on the list.
Eh, I don’t think my various friends and acquaintances that were pretty disappointed by Obama were unserious. They were a little irrational. But that’s the default human state. From the other direction just ask those MAGA farmers who keep trying to fight through their cognitive dissonance to try and stay loyal to Trump as he keeps kicking them in the balls with a grin on his face.
They just did the stereotypical Democrat thing of “falling in love” with a candidate by projecting their own hopes and aspirations on them, then becoming disenchanted with them when it turned out they hate to go out dancing and loathe getting cat hairs on their work suits. They never said they liked to dance or were fond of cats. You just assumed they would, because who doesn’t like dancing or cats? But now it’s a deal-breaker because love me, love my cat.
It’s nothing to worry about, exactly. It’s just a probably pretty accurate prophecy.
Name recognition plus the unfair craving for “the next Obama” and may we remember Obama did 4 years in the US Senate, not just 2. IMO someone just getting elected to the Senate 2 years before is not going to be in a position to run top-of-the-ticket unless they have an extraordinary pre-Senate resumé (but they may be picked for VP).