If you really believe the WSJ would have written a critical opinion article if JD Vance, or even Newsom, gave that same answer at a security conference, or that you yourself would have echoed it, then I think we’re living in different universes. “Politician gives generic answer” is not remotely a political story, much less worth an opinion column at a major paper.
Ok. Do you have a different example of AOC speaking about the Taiwan issue that demonstrates some level of foreign policy competence? I’d find that about a hundred times more persuasive than complaining about the WSJ not liking AOC.
I’m not going to waste any time on this kind of bullshit. “Politician gives generic answer” is not remotely worth discussing.
Cool, let’s go back to discussing how Newsom does in fact stand for something, in this case green energy and California’s economic prosperity:
We can add continuing to ensure California’s place as the world’s fourth largest economy even through Trump tariffs and similar challenges as one of the many, many incredible things that Gavin Newsom stands for.
Ensuring California’s transition to clean energy continues unabated despite Trump’s disastrous federal policy is another.
It’s great to see a presidential hopeful who is actively continuing to get shit done, even under Trump, while awaiting the 2028 campaign season.
What I want is someone who can win and also wants to do most of the things that I want done. I hope other Democrats are looking at that as their foremost goal. Why Democrats don’t win the presidency as often as they should, in my opinion, is that Democratic voters want their candidate to check every box while Republicans only care if their candidate checks the one box they most care about. For example:
Republican voter: “Well, DJT is a crude son of a bitch, but he’s against abortion so he has my vote.”
Democratic voter: “Well, Harris seems smart and all, but I just don’t know enough about her policies on [whiny voice/] the economy [/whiny voice].
Does Newsom agree with me on everything? No. Does he agree with me on most things? Yes. Do I think AOC would make a good president? Yes. Do I think she could win? No. Ditto for Whitmer. Note that the US elected the most evil person it has ever produced twice, each time against a female candidate. Let’s get someone sane elected for a couple cycles, take the House, take the Senate, make some judicial appointments so we no longer have the Supreme Court Republicans Of The United Maga States- then we’ll see if the country is ready to elect a female.
I’m hoping for - but not at all expecting - a Democratic candidate who will truly grab the economy by the horns on the household level - making inflation, the soaring cost of living, soaring cost of everything, his No. 1 priority and hammer it over and over again. However bad things may be in 2026 in terms of making financial ends meet, it’s only going to be doubly worse for Americans by November 2028.
I think this can be done successfully if everything is tied to blaming the ultra-wealthy (which I think is both largely accurate and a political winner). “Inflation is bad because the ultra-wealthy benefit from it by abc…” “Health care is too expensive because of preferred policies xyz of the ultra-wealthy…” etc. Pretty much everything can and should be blamed on the ultra-wealthy.
She is a contender, but I think she needs more experience.
Right. Yes, Newsom- in a podcast- once said a line that is middle of the road, but not 100% pro trans youth. But what he has actually done for the LGBT++ community is way above what any other politician actually has. He walks the walk, even if sometimes when he talks there is a something not that good.
The Oval Office has very little control over Inflation, as trump found out, despite his lies that he could basically fix it with a stroke of the pen. Biden instituted programs that slowly decreased inflation, from the high % he inherited from trump. But yes- that needs to be made clear to the Voters (Harris didnt),
…And what’s wrong with that? She didn’t manage to solve the whole situation with one insightful bon mot? It’s an inherently very difficult situation, that doesn’t allow for easy answers. But “we want to avoid war and will use economic leverage to do it” is at least the start of a solution.
Can you cite anyone, anywhere, who’s done any better on Taiwan?
And it’s not up to her, it’s to to Trump. She was no doubt struggling to say something that wasn’t going to proven untrue by fearless leader.
Joe Biden?
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/19/1123759127/biden-again-says-u-s-would-help-taiwan-if-china-attacks
Obama has given some extremely clear answers on that as well.
She was asked what the US would but also what it should do. If Newsom is asked what position the US should take on a foreign policy question, do you think he would answer based on what Trump would do? Or would he pitch his own view on the topic?
You don’t need to persuade Democrats to vote for the Democratic nominee. Democrats voted for Haris in the 2024 general election even though they had universally rejected her in the 2020 primary and she was a remarkably bad candidate by any standard besides the rather low bar of “being better than Donald Trump.”
You also don’t need to waste time on far leftists, who will call whoever the candidate is “Genocide AOC” or whatever and find some reason to work as the left arm of Trumpism for the fourth straight cycle. There is no way to avoid this and only ground to be gained among centrists by denouncing it.
You need to persuade independent persuadable voters - the people who actually did vote Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump in the last four elections. They will determine what happens in swing states, and I suspect you know pretty well what they care about even if you don’t like it.
My concerns with both AOC and Newsom are that they are galvanizing figures to both the Right (such as it is) and MAGA. Run either AOC or Newsom, and you inflame the passions of the opposition to get out there and vote against them.
I think we will be in more of a Biden moment again in 2028. Most people don’t even know the worst about Trump. They just want Teh Crazy™ to stop.
That’s why I am more supportive of Kelly. He’s got a great story, he’s tough and as I previously said, he has crossover appeal. He’s experienced and competent. Also fearless. I think a “sexy” Democratic candidate will not work in 2028. People have had enough of being yanked hard right or left – or at least, thinking they are. A steady, calming influence is what I believe will work best, appeal the most and keep the entreaties for votes by MAGA at bay.
Kelly needs to up his public speaking game. But that’s easily done with coaching, and he has time.
And of course it’s very early. I’m far more invested in the mid-terms at this point.
“Gov. Gavin Newsom, crypto executives and business leaders are ramping up efforts this week to stop the proposed wealth tax…”
What courage to work with crypto executives against a tax on the ultra wealthy!
Meanwhile, Cory Booker is apparently trying to write himself out of contention, given that he’s now posting about how much better off America was under (checks notes) George W. Bush.
A wealth tax would be absolutely disastrous, especially if it’s passed only in one state. Gavin is absolutely right to oppose this measure.
America absolutely was better off under Bush than it is now under Trump. If Booker is writing himself out of contention by acknowledging objective reality, our country is doomed.
I mean, he’s right? Booker was specifically highlighting the fact that Bush, a Republican president, could speak with class and dignity. He wasn’t saying Bush was good, so much as he was saying, “Hey, our current Republican president is a lot shittier than our last Republican president.”
…I’m not sure you and I are remembering the same George W. Bush.
Could you link the clip that Booker was responding to so that we can all decide for ourselves if it showcases any amount of “dignity and grace” as labeled on the video or “decency” as described by Booker?