If he gets the nomination I promise to stop!
Stop first and he has that much better of a chance.
I would if I liked Newsom, but I don’t.
Then vote for someone else in the primary. And donate according if you can.
Name calling is one of the three causes of Hillary losing to trump.
What.
Three - no, four!!!
(I’m guessing the other two are pantsuits and markedly hideous laugh)
538 came up with the Three causes of Hillary’s loss-
The Comey memo
Bad election strategy
huge amounts of hate postings, etc. Kremlin, GOP and the more left leaning opposition in her own party.
He said Hillary could have won if any of the three had not been there.
Sounds okay to me, but I am no political expert or pundit at that level.
Anyway, that was his “expert” analysis. Believe it or not.
Here’s someone I’ve just became aware of, who seems to have a lot of the qualities that we’ve talked about needing in a candidate:
Washington Representative Adam Smith.
He’s fairly young (politically, anyway) at 59 (he turns 60 tomorrow, as I write this). He’s previously been a Washington State Senator. He seems to champion a lot of the things that we’ve said we want democrats to stand for. He’s well-spoken, passionate, intelligent, and unafraid to speak truth to power.
What got me thinking about him was this bit of his conversation with Hegseth, when Hegseth appeared before the House Armed Services Committee recently (YouTube video from the Forbes Breaking News channel, about 15 minutes in length), where he took Hegseth to task for a lot of the things that Trump has expressed a desire to do. Smith talks about Greenland, Canada, and Panama. He goes into the Qatari jet. He takes Hegseth to task for the administration renaming ships and military bases. He lambastes the administration for their DEI stance, while saying that he disagrees with a lot of the extreme DEI, but talks about the excluded middle.
I dunno. I hadn’t even heard of him until I just happened to see that video. But he impressed the hell outta me.
And we, as a country, could do a lot worse. ARE doing a lot worse.
Matthew Patrick 2028. I believe his speech will be an allusion to “I Have a Dream”
“I Have a Theory”
I kinda don’t buy the reasoning of “don’t say anything bad about any Democrat who is very likely to run for president.”
Trump isn’t running in 2028 (if he does, we’re talking about a totally different political order anyway), so we don’t need to beat the greatest demagogue in American political history. We just need to beat some random GOP dickhead. We can do that, so we need to go for someone that we want in addition to someone we think can win.
I don’t hate Newsom per se, but I strongly dislike the idea of him as president. He shouldn’t be nominated, and I will fight in my own limited way against that happening. If he ends up getting nominated, I’ll vote for him over any Republican. If my past comments somehow influence others not to vote for him at that point, oh well, too bad.
Bad is fine. “Candidate X doesnt have enough experience yet”. Or any other legit issue. Maybe even- “California doesnt have a good record of dem candidates”
It’s the name calling that is the issue.
Doesn’t that just end up being a quippy expression of disapproval? I’m not sure I see the particular harm in it.
Don’t get me wrong: it is inconvenient if a Dem primary candidate is hated and lambasted by a large swathe of the base but then goes on to get the nomination. Donald Trump had to deal with that issue in 2016, and his toadies had to find weaselly ways to undo their negative comments. But I think that’s a chance we take when we do real politics with a bit of passion.
Agreed. I don’t think we should be so over-focused on the general election that we ignore or downplay the faults of a candidate in the primaries. I’m all for honest, robust political debate, discussing candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. It’s vital to democracy and well-informed voting.
Sure. “Not experienced enough” " I do not care for their stance on xxxx"= all good.
“He is a poopy head boogerman” Not good.
See,strengths and weaknesses- not name calling.
My top 3 are:
Pete Buttgieg
Cory Brooker
Gavin Newsome
I don’t head-over-heels love any of them, but I don’t mind or care about an amazing candidate. I just want one to win.
My pick would be Cory Brooker from the ones I listed. All three would serve just fine.
Our Michigan Governor, Whitmer, would do great, but I’m now convinced this nation is just rejecting women.
Newsom, no e. I normally wouldn’t be this annoyingly, pettily pedantic 
, but this is the fourth Newsome from four different posters in this admittedly long thread and I see this particular misspelling all the time on this board. Autocorrect maybe? Or just the mind adding an e to the end of some. Heck, I’ve probably done it.
Anyway, just a one-off correction for posterity.
Newsome (with an e) is a fairly common surname, as well. I’ve had to train myself that Gavin’s name doesn’t have the final “e.”
Newsom spent the year up until last week hosting a bunch of far right shitheads on his podcast. He’d be a terrible president.
Booker is way too cozy with the pharma lobby, but I’d take him in a second.
Needs more experience. Maybe a term in the Senate? I’d like to see that.
Suggested door to door gun confiscation.
As long as we’re being pettily pedantic, this is oh-for-three
Pete Buttigieg
Cory Booker
And, as already mentioned,
Gavin Newsom