Over any republican myself.
Same thing!
It was only recently that I learned he was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle. That subtracted a few points for me, but I actually do like him. I also think he’s way too slick for many, if not most, people.
I’ve often likened him to the complicated Tommy Carcetti from the HBO series The Wire (who was himself partially based on Martin O’Malley). Young(ish), very ambitious, slightly shady, smart, sometimes arrogant, essentially well-meaning political player that worked his way up from young mayor to state governor. I think his heart is mostly in the right place, I agree with him politically more often than not, think he mostly does/would do a decent job and I don’t particularly like him.
But I keep voting for him, despite my mild distaste.
He gives off a strong douchebag vibe, and fawning over Charlie Kirk on his podcast didn’t raise him at all in my esteem.
Yes and yes.
The latest poll by AtlasIntel shows Mayor Pete in a surprisingly big lead at 32%. This is substantially better than the other polls though he is clearly one of the front-runners at least. Harris is still polling well but her numbers are dropping and I doubt she will be a serious contender. At this early stage the front-runners look like Buttigieg, Booker, Newsom and AOC with a couple of dark horses likely to emerge when the race gets serious. Of these I think AOC would be a disaster and a likely loser, Newsom fairly dubious but not without some strengths and Buttigieg/Booker two relatively strong candidates though with some significant weaknesses too.
It’s also rumored that Newsom was part of the inspiration for Gavin Belson, the similarly ambitious/shady/arrogant/etc. tech CEO on HBO’s Silicon Valley. (Which, coincidentally, also featured a character named “Guilfoyle.”)
Saw this article about Rahm:
Ugh.
Interesting how this seems to be a disqualification for Dems, but seems to be a requirement for the “Moral” party- the GOP. 
Something that boosts my hopes about '28 - since pretty much 1976, if Democrats have a wide open primary without a presumptive nominee, and not against an elected incumbent, they win, I believe without exception. All the Democratic non-incumbent wins since '76 came in this way (Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden), and their losses were either incumbent losses or presumptive nominee losses. And '28 should be a wide open primary against a non incumbent.
Not in 2016. The primary- despite what some have claimed- was wide open. In fact being wide open was one of the things that lost Hillary the election. The only “presumptive nominee” was Harris.
Not to mention the 1988 election, where again the Dem nomination (Dukakis) was also wide open.
For what it’s worth, all of those victories also came on the heels of significant crises (recessions, wars, corruption, and a pandemic) which occurred during their GOP predecessors’ tenures.
You are telling me that we need to hope for a bigger crisis than the one ya got? 
Good point on Dukakis, but I disagree about '16. No point in relitigating it now.
Good point. And so will 2028, of course.
Okay.
I think Newsom is mostly a scumbag (compared to most other Democratic possibilities), but in vocally fighting the Trump administration, he’s making the right decision. Democrats in the House and Senate should be doing everything they can to shut down normal business until the law breaking stops.
The winner of the '28 primary is going to be a fighter.
Boy this is the kind of backing that will ensure the Dem retake the White House.
You know, none of the leading Dem candidates are a bad choice or will make a bad president- IMHO- a couple need more experience before they can win, but they still seem to have good ideas.
Any of them will make a better choice than any MAGA.
There are plenty of scumbags I would happily vote for over any MAGA candidate, because they are all far, far worse.
Maybe then, it’d be best if people didnt call them names.