Gavin Newsome
VP - Josh Shapiro
Is there any other saving grace? Any other possibility?
Sure. Pritzker-Shapiro. Pritzker-AOC. Pritzker-Warnock. Warnock-AOC. Pritzker-Kelly. Warnock-Shapiro. Warnock-Gallego. Gallego-Warnock. Gallego-Shapiro. Gallego-Kelly. Shapiro-AOC. Shapiro-Kelly. Shapiro-Warnock. Shapiro-Kelly. Shapiro-Buttigieg. The list goes on and on, and until we start seeing some people actually campaign, we have no idea who’s gonna actually connect with the public.
Newsom is quite possibly the worst choice. Republicans hate him because he’s a California liberal. Progressives hate him because he’s anti-trans and anti-homeless and pals around with MAGAs. He would lose for the same reasons Harris lost.
Republicans hate all possible Dems candidates. Newsom is NOT anti-trans.
Nor is he anti-homeless-
Please dont dredge up that edited snippet from a Kirk podcast. When you are on a podcast, you tend to go along with what the host is talking about. Look instead for what Newsom has done to actually help the trans community, then compare it to what he has actually done to harm the trans community (which is nothing).
Newsom WAS the host.
So? Look at what he has actually DONE.
He vetoed a bill that would have improved trans access to health care.
not sure “cleaning up homeless encampments” is anti homeless.
No, from my cite- He has vetoed some pro-trans bills, such as, this year, one that would have required an inclusive view of gender in health education classes. He said the legislation should wait until a state study of health curricula was done.
Health education classes.
From my cite;
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Equality California and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California are disappointed by Governor Newsom’s veto of Assembly Bill 2442 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur – co-sponsored legislation that would have required the expedited processing of licensure applications for medical and mental health providers who demonstrate a commitment to offering gender-affirming care within their licensed scope of practice.
Gender-affirming care
Forcing people to be constantly on the move for fear of having all their worldly possessions destroyed by the police seems pretty anti-homeless to me.
That wasnt a bill to improve “Gender-affirming care” that was a bill to " expedited processing of licensure applications" .
and this was his reasoning-
I commend the authors’ commitment to addressing healthcare gaps in the
state, but I am concerned about the aggregate effect of legislation that seeks
to expedite licensure. As the number of applicants who qualify for expedited
licensure grows through legislation, the benefits of mandated prioritization may
start to diminish, at the expense of potential negative impacts to other
applicants. Additionally, the increase in staff needed to ensure expedited
applications may lead to licensing fee increases.
It would be prudent to allow time for the current expedited licensure processes
to continue so that we can gather data on their effectiveness. This will allow the
state to be well informed on the efficacy of this practice before pursuing
additional frameworks for expedited licensure and confirm these processes do
not lead to unintended consequences on the broader healthcare workforce.
That’s a lot of words to say “I’m pandering to transphobes because I want their votes”.
That Newsom is a skilled politician able to couch anti-trans sentiment in pol-gobbledygook doesn’t mean he doesn’t suck. He sucks, and I hope he’s not the nominee. If he is the nominee I’ll vote for him, but in the primary I’d support most other candidates over him.
I cant change your mind, despite the facts, so i am giving this up before it turns into a hijack.
I just watched Jon Stewart’s interview with Mark Kelly. He’s always seemed a bit stiff in interviews but he’s clearly learned from experience and in this interview came off as much more smooth and comfortable, even friendly and humorous. I admire his guts in calling out this corrupt regime. I’d vote for him today.
He did that loudly in the Rachel Maddow interview, too. More Democrats should be doing that as loudly as Kelly is.
This is going to be the reality for many ideological positions. During the Democratic primary it can hurt a candidate to not be strong enough on certain positions, but it may not matter in the general election. With Newsome, the number of people who care deeply about trans issues but would instead vote for a Republican over him has to be insignificantly small. For the Democratic candidate to win the general, it’s more important to have someone who aligns with the voters who don’t think of themselves as passionate Democratic voters. The passionate Democratic voters will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what (almost). But to win the general, the candidate has to appeal to wide swaths of voters outside that demographic.
My hope is that people who vote in the Democratic primary do so with a view on who can best win the general election rather than who is most closely aligned with their own beliefs. If the winner of the primary isn’t able to connect with the other voters who aren’t strongly aligned with core Democratic values, then they probably won’t win the general and it’ll be another 4 years of Republican rule. To get a Democrat in power, the passionate Democrats will likely need to pick a candidate who’s imperfect from a core Democrat standpoint but has enough wide appeal to have a chance at winning the election.
What we need is for Biden to come out of retirement, a much older a much wiser Biden to lead such a fractured country.
/s
Kelly is cool but I’d bang on any drum to get AOC elected. The harsh reality of it tho is the US just isn’t ready to elect a woman. So much so its the only time this guy wins. The issue I see with Kelly too is that he is a twin, and the conspiracy nuts would have a field day with that. Being in AZ I got to see the dumb smear tactics his opponent tried; one that stuck out, and my group of friends memed endlessly, went something like this “Mark Kelly wants to send Arizonans to space, so far he has sent NO ONE to space. I’m blaha and I support this message” (thats how we remembered it)
Obviously you want to do both to the greatest extent possible, but I think in the current climate it would be best to err on the side of nominating a progressive who can spur enthusiasm and turnout among the base.
The problem with trying to appeal to swing voters is that, though I wouldn’t advise politicians to say this out loud, swing voters are fucking morons. People who aren’t sure whether to support Trump or not aren’t any smarter than those who ardently support him, they’re just consuming a less toxic media diet. This is why Lynne Cheney couldn’t save us; all the conservatives who actually value Constitutional democracy were already voting for Harris, and there aren’t enough of them to make a difference.
If a voter’s thought process is “Well, I don’t like the mass deportations, or the constant corruption and lawbreaking, or the removal of environmental protections, or the loss of reproductive rights, or the slashing of the social safety net, or the anti-vax stuff, or the teaching Christianity in the public schools…but on the other hand, I don’t want boys playing girls’ sports!”, that voter is a fucking moron. Maybe they’ll end up voting for us, maybe they won’t, but whatever choice they make, it will be for a stupid reason. It’s a loser’s game to try to come up with an argument that will reliably win them over, because you can’t predict stupid. I’m not a big fan of Newsom, but I appreciate that he’s making an effort to reach out to those voters who get their political news from memes.
In approximate order of priority, what we need to do is:
*Don’t nominate anyone who is already known to be highly unpopular. Hillary Clinton was a massive unforced error for the Dems.
*Conversely, don’t NOT nominate someone just because they are a member of some minority group and/or are deemed “too far left”. Certainly don’t conclude that “America will never elect a woman” based on a sample size of two mediocre candidates. For example, right now I am highly dubious of AOC’s ability to win a national general election based on numerous prior assumptions: she’s a minority, a woman, quite young, and outspokenly leftist. But if she enters the race and cleans up in Iowa and New Hampshire, and if polls are showing she matches up at least as well as anyone else with the likely GOP candidate, that should be enough evidence to toss out all those priors and get on the bandwagon.
*Focus on economic populism and “kitchen table issues”, because that’s where our strength is. Harris’ campaign was based largely on warning Americans that Trump was a threat to democracy…but everyone who cared about that was already voting for her, and we are clearly not close to being a majority.
*For the love of God, please nominate someone who can get through two terms and still not be in a high-risk group for Alzheimer’s!
One more time, with feeling. 
