Of course he did, since CA is only one of 50 states. But if you mean “in CA elections”- also of course, as CA has an unusual election system. But in any case-
Newsom won in a landslide, with 62% of the vote, the biggest victory in a gubernatorial race in California since Earl Warren won re-election in 1950, and the biggest victory for a non-incumbent since 1930.[1] The election also marked the first time in 40 years since Orange County had voted for the Democratic candidate since Jerry Brown won it in 1978, and the first time Democrats won three consecutive gubernatorial elections in the state’s history.
Again, CA has a unusual election system, but anyway
She won her second election by 57 to 42. She won her Senate post by 62 to 38.
Your tariff taxes wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof," Pritzker wrote in a letter to Trump on Friday. “This morning, your hand-picked Supreme Court Justices notified you that they are also unconstitutional.”
“On behalf of the people of Illinois, I demand a refund of $1,700 for every family in Illinois. There are 5,105,448 households in my state, bringing the total damages you owe to $8,679,261,600,” the governor continued.
Warnock and Whitmer also are shown to be over performers when they run against Republicans.
Democrats have a bunch of potential presidents who consistently outperform in general elections. There’s no need to reach down to someone like AOC who is 2-2 there, or Newsom who is 0-5.
I would love to hear the theory of the swing voter mind from the “propaganda” people. If one were forced to guess what you think from posts in this thread, it would be something like:
-When Republicans win elections, it’s because “propaganda” succeeded in activating “bigots.” The explanation for how Democrats won the presidency in 2008, 2012, and 2020 or won lots of competitive state-level races in 2024 with the same voters who rejected Kamala seems to be shrugging the shoulders. Sometimes the people doing the “propaganda” decide to take four years off or not aim the “bigot” ray at North Carolina or Pennsylvania specifically, and we haven’t figured out why yet.
-Since everything is determined by whether Republicans choose to do irresistible “propaganda” or not, the Democratic Party and its candidates have no agency whatsoever in shaping voter behavior, even with over a billion dollars to spend on advertising. We might as well get moral brownie points by nominating minorities or people who can’t complete a sentence, since it doesn’t make any difference who the nominee is or what they say or do during the campaign anyway.
-Swing voters, absent “propaganda,” actually love everything that the Democratic Party believes and does when in power, and are lying when they say otherwise in polls. There is no disconnect between “what the posters in this thread believe” or “what the Democratic Party believes” and “what the voters who determine elections want,” or if there is, it’s because they are all “bigots,” unless this is one of the elections in which they are mysteriously not. There is no need to make any sort of choice about what issues are not morally fundamental or what messages to emphasize, because the platform is already ontologically perfect.
Surely no one is actually going to claim to believe this even though it’s the logical implication of your posting, so I’m asking, what DO you think is going on in the heads of people who have voted for at least one Democrat and at least one Republican for president since 2008, and what if anything should the 2028 candidate do to appeal to them?
Do you think Josh Shapiro can even appear in a debate during the Democratic primary cycle without the DSA wing storming the stage in Hamas gear and shouting about “genocide”? Do you think this is a problem, for the way the Democratic Party appears to normal people?
If I had to name a potential Democratic candidate who not only should lose the nomination, but who shouldn’t even run, it’s Pritzker. The number one message for the Democrats should be change. And low info voters are going to see Pritzker as another hotel billionaire.
Does Silver even mention that Beshear’s father Steve was a popular, two-term governor of Kentucky from 2007-2015? That singular advantage doesn’t translate to anything when discussing electability.
Win at the Presidential level yes, but there are of course many GOP stalwarts- just not enough to win nationally. They have to attract some Indy voters.
No. In the cast of trump/Biden/trump the voters simply forgot trump lied to them in 4 years of Biden. They turned on trump as his lies and promises dont come true. That is the issue with Right Wing Populists- they make impossible promises to the Hoi polloi, and when they fail, they get voted out next time- see Boris Johnson and his Conservative cronies.
It is very hard to counter such “pie in the sky lies” unless the voters remember they didnt come true.
Nope.
About 1/3 lean Republican, 1/3 democratic, the rest are truly undecided.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is demanding immediate tariff refund checks for Americans after the Supreme Court ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal.
I think he’d be a solid choice. His stances- backed by things he actually has done- are pretty good, and he donates a lot of that Hotel money.
See, I want to see candidates who have walked the walk- Newsom, Pritzker, Harris, Whitmer, Shapiro- not just those who “talk the talk”. What they SAY is nigh meaningless, I want to see what they have DONE.
Pritzker being a billionaire doesn’t bother me because he doesn’t act like it puts him above the law and he hasn’t prioritized making himself richer over anything else. FDR was a wealthy aristocrat and he was the most progressive president this country has ever had, and I could easily see Pritzker being much the same as president.
There are two ways to judge choice solidity that will inevitably be mixed up in this thread – electability and policy. Everyone here cares about both.
At one time I mostly cared about policy. But in the MAGA era, I mostly care about electability.
By normal standards, where I’m not too worried about someone from the other party winning, Pritzker is a solid choice on both policy and electability. But when it’s really important that MAGA be defeated (and defeated solidly, to make GOP cheating harder), my reaction to Pritzker is that there are better choices.
Here’s are some Pritzker electability issues:
– Not a veteran. This is important because the Democratic brand has some patriotism issues. Is the last sentence unfair? Yes. Political life is unfair. But having the candidate be a veteran is a way the Democrats can show patriotism without having to make even the slightest policy compromise.
– Perhaps related to the above, when Tammy Duckworth and JB Pritzker ran statewide in 2022, Duckworth ran two points ahead of Pritzker. We need those two points.
– Never ran for office in a swing state, although I admit this is a bit weak of a concern because he did defeat an incumbent Republican in 2018.
I am also a bit concerned that he is one of the older candidates. So is Kelly, but JB’s parents died young, with his father dying of a heart attack at 39.
We haven’t had a “veteran” as president for 34 years.
That kind of wonkish chasing after percentages like a game of fantasy baseball is how you end up with Tim Walz being told not to call Republicans “weird” because you want Liz Cheney’s endorsement.
Neither had Obama or Biden.
He’s 61. He’s a spring chicken compared to half of Capitol Hill.
You want a candidate that’s electable, nominate someone with policies that people want to vote for instead of fretting over demographics and statistics and checking off boxes.
We all remember the Wesley Clark nonsense, the “swiftboating” of John Kerry, Donald Trump bashing John McCain for being a seriously injured POW and his supporters not caring, and the larger fact that basically every presidential election winner since 1992 has avoided meaningful military service, with only Obama having the luxury of simply saying he made other choices during a time when there was no draft. Biden and Trump both got flimsy medical deferments, Clinton hid away in grad school to remain draft-ineligible, W got a corrupt appointment to the national guard. 2028 will mark the fortieth anniversary of the last time a candidate who saw meaningful military service won a presidential election.
And the “just run a war hero, they will have to like him!” bullshit has been repeated at the state level by Democrats a thousand times too. It never works. It’s nonsense. It doesn’t matter. Nobody cares about anyone’s military history or why they don’t have one. Stop deluding yourselves.