Right - he supports trans rights, access to gender affirming care for trans people, and all the other things I agree with - while opposing sports being based on self identification alone - which I also agree with, as do 67% of Democratic voters (and 80% of voters overall). Trying to paint this as a “not liberal” or “MAGA” position is laughable.
On ICE, he is deeply opposed to how ICE has been behaving, but he’s against the idiotic and self sabotaging slogan “Abolish ICE”, because he learned from the Defund the Police fiasco. Very good, I completely agree with him.
I respect myself, which is why I will support a staunch Liberal like Newsom over anyone willing to flirt with illiberal ideologies.
46% of Americans, including 76% of Democrats, support abolishing ICE.
Abolish ICE is a mainstream, majority Democratic opinion these days - “defund they police” never remotely came close to this. Like it or not, most Democrats want to get rid of this fascist agency, and there’s a good chance this will be reflected in primary voting (and thus the positions of candidates).
We need the 2028 candidate to be a fighter, and Newsom has proven that he isn’t. He had the opportunity to land a solid blow against Trump, and passed it up. When Trump ordered the California National Guard into Los Angeles, Newsom should have ordered them to stand down, to force them to actually decide which order was legal and which order was not. The fact that he passed up the opportunity to fight Trump tells me that he’s not the candidate we need.
I’m amazed that Mark Kelly is ranked so low, given how hard Hegseth has been campaigning for him.
This is the main reason I like Pritzker - he’s not afraid to stand up to Trump’s BS.
Mark Kelly is an American hero and eminently qualified for the job, but unfortunately, he looks like Wallace Shawn’s wimpier brother, and people are shallow.
And Trump looks like Ernie from Sesame Street impregnated an Oompa-Loompa, but it didn’t stop him.
Irrespective of his looks, I think Kelly is the one Republicans are most worried about. He is an American hero, he’s tough, he stands up to this regime and he has crossover appeal.
It’s why Republicans are so focused on trying to take him out of the running so early.
Doesn’t mean Democrats will be smart enough to pick him.
Kelly’s got a great story (and by everything I can find seems like a very decent man and a patriot), but that’s not enough to get elected by itself. We need a great communicator. Great communicators win, full stop. Maybe Kelly will become a great communicator, but I haven’t seen it yet.
Who are the natural communicators in the running? IMO: Buttigieg, AOC, Newsom (as much as I think he sucks), Booker (if he runs), maybe Shapiro (who also kinda sucks IMO). Maybe some others are close or will prove to be communications talents.
Communicating is the job (running for President). That’s the biggest characteristic we need. Right now, AOC is my pick and it’s not close. But there’s a long, long way to go.
I’d like to see more experience than AOC has. But if the matchup polls show her as a contender, I’m behind her.
AOC would have my vote if she ran, but I’d rather she wait for 2036. I want her to run for Schumer’s seat in 2028.
Yes, look at WHY he vetoed those not well thought out bills-Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 86, a technical measure that would have updated language in the state’s K-8 health education standards to align with the curriculum framework adopted by the state Board of Education in 2019. Why? "In his veto message, Newsom said the bill should not be considered until after the state completes an ongoing review of its health curriculum standards.
There was another bill he vetoed- one which would have allowed centers to assist youth into transitioning- by getting rid of most of the important safeguards and checks. You cant shortcut critical things like that. Imagine if some anti-trans group snuck in there and started to try and scare young people OUT of transitioning. Can’t happen you say? It has- back in the days of Roe, many anti-abortion groups opened what they called “Abortion counseling centers” which actually used scare tactics, likes and propaganda to scare pregnant women out of getting an abortion.
For something as sensitive as transitioning youth- you can’t cut corners, and let any old group get in there. It has to be done RIGHT!
As to the HRT stockpiling bill Senate 418-
As to ICE? Not only has Newsom fought hard, but here is what voters actually think-
The question is how far to go, as a new NBC News Decision Desk Poll finds 43% want ICE reformed, 29% want it abolished, and 29% want it to continue in its current form.
Reformed is exactly what the Dem leadership and Newsom are trying to do. Supported by 43% of Americans- only 29% want it actually abolished.
Sacramento, California – In a major rebuke of Donald Trump, a federal court has granted California’s injunction blocking Trump’s illegal use of the U.S. military as a domestic police force. The ruling makes clear: Trump is breaking the law by trying to create a national police force with himself as its chief.
Newsom did fight trump on this- and won.
Vance beats her in a single poll, but not by a lot.
In five polls, Vance over Newsom by 1% in three of them (a virtual tie)- in one it is an exact tie and in one Newsom beats Vance by 8%.
He took Trump to court on it, and as a result, lost, because the courts were too slow. It doesn’t matter what decision the courts reach if it takes them months after the crisis to reach it. He needed a now-action, and he had a now-action available to him.
trump ordeed them in June 10, 2025, the Court said NO September 2, 2025. Very fast.
And the Federal law states the Feds have precedence. Ordering them to stand down would have done nothing. The National Guard has been in effect- federalized. This actually worked. Has any Governor tried that? Oregon? The Governor filed suit & won. Illinois? In Illinois- they filed lawsuits- and won. State governors simply have no authority once the NG has been federalized.
Very fast for a court order. Very slow for a war. Which reinforces my point that the courts were the wrong avenue here.
And state governors have no authority over the National Guard once they’ve been legally federalized. But the order to federalize them, in this case, was an illegal order. Which Newsom should have reminded them of.
I disagree. If Newsom had acted as you want, it still would have gone to the courts. Without knowing what SCOTUS would do, meaning they could have ruled in Trump’s favor and set that as the precedent, it would have been a very dangerous way to proceed.
Yes, the courts are slow. Trump has always used this to his advantage. But they also always have the last say. At least for now.
I’m aware of the one survey that said so that everyone keeps quoting, but one survey does not actually prove that this is the case, especially when other surveys show that only 29% of Democrats support abolishing ICE:
Did support drop off by 47% between the two polls? Is one of them biased or inaccurate for some reason? We should probably have more polls to find out.
Until then, I don’t see any reason to think that a phrase that’s so similar to Defund the Police won’t have similar results.
Apparently not, since 29% isn’t a majority. I’d be interested in more polls.
If it does turn out that there is consistent and widespread support for this position among not just registered Democrats but independent voters as well, and that this support for this position doesn’t immediately fall off when ICE isn’t in the news on a daily basis anymore, then I’d be open to considering the idea that Abolish ICE is not a poison pill.
Newsom is one of the only people actually fighting Trump, with his bill to counter Texas’ gerrymandering which he got both the legislators and the public on board with.
Either a situation like that would be decided by the courts, in which case that doesn’t seem to differ much from what Newsom actually did, or it would be decided by men with guns deciding who they like better, which would mean the end of rule of law in this country. I think what Newsom did worked much better than forcing a constitutional crisis and hoping the armed men side with you.
I don’t think the problem is his looks in particular, but how captivating the public finds him.
It’s also possible that they asked the question differently, were done at different times (particularly if one of the studies was done immediately after an ICE shooting), had different sample definitions, etc. Both could be valid, but still not be directly comparable.
Incidentally, that’s precisely what I would guess happened - one poll looked at Abolish ICE vs do nothing while the other had an extra option (Reform ICE).
But I would consider that a type of bias. Not intentional bias, but the results are biased by the way the question is asked.