Maybe I read too much into “has become a popular stop” - as if any serious prospective candidate had an alternative.
I guess I’m OK with Newsom as an operative, but I don’t want to vote for him again. Since he had Charlie Kirk on his podcast and they “found common ground” on their shared transphobia I can’t ethically pull the lever for him.
https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/this-is-gavin-newsom/and-this-is-charlie-kirk
(Kirk) But would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports?
00:22:55
(Newsom)Well, I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair.
We have liberal posters here on the SDMB arguing that allowing trans-women to compete in certain sports is unfair. Personally I disagree. But it is not “transphobia”.
Relevant to the thread:
The Mad Libs Candidate: Polling the Perfect Democrat, No Assembly Required
They note that that no candidate will met all the polled ideal candidate criteria.
Of those mentioned in the thread, I think Pritzker does badly with this criteria. You want someone who grew up poor or middle class, not a bilionaire heir. And my favorite, Gallego, does well.
Sounds like a focus-tested, consultant-approved, buzzword-fulfilling, Guardians of the Status Quo cipher of a Democrat who will utterly bomb at the voting booth. Or a 90s Republican.
James Carville would love them.
MAD Magazine did it first:
Could be.
The problem with asking people why they vote the way they do is lack of self-awareness.
But without grounding in data, I can just say anything. I cannot believe barely grounded logic beats polls.
So: Americans Want Billionaires Out of Politics.
I looked for a poll directly comparing willingness to vote for a woman vs. willingness to vote for a billionaire. And I didn’t find it. The wording of polls on billionaires and women in politics is different. Please, somebody do comparable polls. Then we’ll have a better idea whether I’m right to think that being a billionaire has become a problem and running while female has not.
Trump? Billionaire? One case, and we used to deny it.
They did something like that in the eighties…and came out with Mr. T.
Don’t forget that when Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he ordered city officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. That was way before it was legal nationally, or even in California. In my opinion, his LGBT+ qualifications are unquestionable. In fact it is my belief that the SCOTUS case legalizing same sex marriage is a direct result of Newsom’s actions.
Yep, and altho he and his wife technically are “Millionaires” , they arent that wealthy by either Politician or California standards.
All I know is if Newsome is the Dem nominee, there is a good chance there will be a Republican president elected in 2028.
He currently is polling the best vs Vance, etc., beating Vance in most polls. Mind you, a lot can change.
According to the polls, Clinton beat Trump in 2016. And the reason Newsome will lose is a lot of the currently undecided is they will vote for not-Newsome once they see how slimy he is. OR the Dems will do the same thing they did in 2024 and just not vote because what’s the difference.
The polls showed she would win the Popular vote- which she did.
Ah, now he is ‘slimy”. Okay, sure whatever. And two possibles are Jewish, and a couple are women, and at least one is black, etc etc.. Posters here have a lot of excuses why twhoever cant possibly win. Oh, and several are “old white guys” as you mentioned. I note you havent listed any Dem that you like in this thread. Whom do you support?
I don’t get the Newsom hate. I live in California and he’s been just fine as a governor, and better than most.
I’ve mentioned it many times in other threads. I voted Harris in 2024. Said she was the best candidate the Dems have run in years. AND I believe I’ve stated a few times I would vote for her in 2028.
I understand why many folks share this view, but it is poorly considered. Despite years of public debate, no evidence has yet emerged that trans girls or women possess inherent physical advantages that will allow them to dominate cisgender athletes. And without that evidence, the continued conviction that it’s unfair to allow them to participate can only be explained by prejudice. That’s transphobia.
It’s like saying that persecution of undocumented immigrants isn’t racism, because they’re breaking the law, aren’t they? It’s bigotry cloaked in an insincere performance of logic.
The general public might be forgiven for repeating these talking points, but a governor and prospective presidential candidate ought to know better. And honestly, he probably does know better.
Plenty of transphobes support other pro-LGBTQ+ policies. The fact that he was an early supporter of gay marriage is a non-sequitur.
If you repeat classic anti-trans talking points in an effort to expand your voting base, your LGBTQ+ qualifications are most definitely not unquestionable.
I’m surprised to see that Newsom is indeed pretty clearly the favorite at this point, with Harris the only one close to him.
How many politicians have actually had successful business careers, which I assume is what’s meant by “created jobs in the private sector”? Of those, how many came from working class backgrounds? So that criterion probably isn’t achievable, unless we’re looking at someone with no political experience like Mark Cuban, which would IMO be a bad idea.
Other than being a working class veteran, the other criteria are all obviously desirable. I think Pete Buttigieg is the only candidate who could check both those boxes. (His parents were English professors, so arguably not working class, but certainly not wealthy)