I keep getting a “kier Starmer in a nicer suit” vibe from Gavin Newsome.
They’re probably due a massive sweeping mandate victory provided we’re allowed to have a presidential election in 2028. If you can’t offer anyone any actual reason to vote for you beyond “the default other guy” Labour shows those leads can evaporate quickly.
Kirk and Shapiro are both grifters. The only suitable reason to have grifters on your podcast is to absolutely hammer them with their own hypocrisy and utterly deflate their egos live, for everyone to witness. Newsom wasn't adept enough to grasp that opportunity with both hands because, what...he thought right-wingers that support Kirk and Shapiro might plausibly cast a vote for a democrat in some dystopian future? GTFOH with that.
I'll admit, I have found some of the zingers from his social media team to be internet gold. Voting for a Newsom presidency? Only if he's the last candidate standing because I sure as hell am not voting for that smarmy douchnozzle Vance or any brain-worm ridden Trump clone.
Thank you for writing about this snake. I've never trusted Newsom. I love that his media team is standing up to Trump, but he's a snake. Thank you for recognizing it.
Ah but he gives the sick dunks what Democrats like to hear, which is 'fighting.' So presumably, certain people say, he's going to give the Fight™ to Republicans and "meet the moment." Even when he cuddles with fash.
I will keep saying it, the Internet Faves with the positions that are right best start declaring now and get out in front or Newsom is going to win nomination by default. And all the people praising his sick dunks are suddenly going to remember the shitty things he's done after a nomination has been secured and it's too late to pull out.
It’d be awful if he got it by default but every ambitious Dem is on notice—the thing people like about him is his attacks on Trump, and if they don’t learn to do it better than he does, he’ll get it.
Gone are the days of white papers and “I have a plan for that” and “let’s take down the temperature.” They’re killing citizens in the streets, kidnapping people with no due process, and pretending it’s 1996 looks delusional.
Yes I agree. The tired twitter statements, the sternly worded letters, the "I have a plan for that" campaigns are toast, at least for the foreseeable future. Newsom has traction because he regularly and publicly spits in Trump's face and anyone who wants the nomination for 2028 is going to have show some of that same ability to fight fire with fire.
Not just the GOP. Lots of crossover Obama voters, and Bernie Sanders served the same purpose on the Dem side even if he couldn't overcome the thumb the DNC put on the Clinton scale.
Yep—and his Dem opponents would be wise to remember that every complaint from Ted Cruz that Trump wasn’t a real conservative on various policy positions fell on deaf ears.
THANK YOU! Newsom has a social media team that gets in some zingers against trump and that seems to be enough for some people. Newsome is very opposed to a wealth tax, no friend to the homeless or trans people, I have no idea what his position is on Gaza and I bet he doesn't either. Not this guy, let's keep looking. Or hell, let's elect President Cortez. I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for AOC.
Talk about constantly switching lanes. Whichever way the wind blows seems to be Newsome’s strategy. If he can so easily be swayed right now about ICE, he can also swing the other way on other key points.
“Abolish ICE” is now the moderate position because when an organization has been turned into a president’s private stormtroopers and operates outside the law, it must be abolished. You can create a new, lawful agency to handle immigration enforcement and use existing law enforcement organs in the meantime.
And no, consultant dipshits, voters won’t react to this like they did to “abolish the police” because unlike the police, ICE hasn’t been around that long and people don’t associate it with nabbing and preventing criminals. Most voters only know ICE for what it’s been in the news for lately. We got along without it for centuries.
Most average voters (esp. in the suburbs) have had positive experiences with the police. They have contacted the police when in need, etc. ICE is just a bunch of thugs.
Right? My 92 year old Trump hating mother is certain *her* local police would never engage in the tactics she sees on TV because they are always nice to her.
Yep—and “abolish police” polled poorly even among the urban lower class (and POC) communities it was aimed at. It sounds nuanced but to a lot of people “the police” evokes something positive in protecting them and their neighborhoods from crime, and often even know cops personally who they liked, while at the same time they wanted the cops to be accountable and not be allowed to abuse citizens. It was a complicated relationship that didn5 lend itself to an easy solution.
ICE though is new (like 2001 new), doesn’t keep the citizens safe (unless you buy the idea that every immigrant is a “Breaking Bad” stereotype), and our only interactions are seeing them abuse people. They’re now intrinsically linked with Trump, clearly lawless and incompetent, so voters are just not equating that with the police.
Democrats talk about "black voters as the base" but often their positions are heavily influenced by the academic left. No one would seriously think that someone like Frasier Crane speaks for working class white guys but Dems too often think this same for POC. It influences their positions on policing and immigration.
Absolutely. How many non-college educated people even know what CRT or DEI or “intersectionality” mean? Most people regardless of race have very common lifetime struggles and a smart group would find ways to tie them together even where they differ (e.g., abuse by the police falls disproportionately on young male POCs but even people who are white, female or older can be made to relate to the fear of what an unaccountable cop can do to you, especially if you live in a poor area and don’t have the money fir a good lawyer). But the academic activists can’t see past their own bubbles to even get how their supposed target audience thinks, let alone how to communicate with them.
"CRT or DEI or “intersectionality”" were only issues in the election because the REPUBLICANS created great bogey men issues out of it.
CRT was an academic law school subject. DEI had been a completely anodyne corporate HR term since the 80's until Chrs Rufo twisted and weaponized the terms for GOP advantage.
Stop falling into the Murc's Law trap and place the blam where it belongs.
I think this perhaps understates how these terms were weaponized because they were key concepts fueling mainstream liberalism. It would frustrate me to see Democrats say that CRT was not taught in schools when CRT was very much behind how many schools were run (I live in Portland, for example, but it's not just here). Same with DEI, which the average person probably associates with HR gibberish that frustrates them in their normal job.
Same with trans issues...Republicans started a campaign against them and as democrats we had no CHOICE but to defend them (and still do). trans people and public restrooms had existed together for decades but NOW its a problem?
Rs greatest 'talent' is being able to force us into having to defend ourselves...THAT'S how they haqve almost full control of the narrative...THEY decide what 'everyone is talking about'...Its infuriating. I don't know how to defeat that
Yup...You do what B Sanders and Z Mamdani do...You keep the message lean and simple and repeat it OVER and OVER again and you refuse to get derailed by bad faith shit stirring questions. Always bring the message home. Mamdani is ESPECIALLY adept at this...
That sort of backsliding makes me think he can’t fill the still-open role of Democratic attack dog. They need a pit fighter and a pit fighter would have started from the premise that immigration is a good thing, not just for compassionate reasons but because they fuel our economic growth and our long history of massive immigration is the reason we’re so much richer than other countries and why, Ben, do you hate America getting wealthier? Is it because you’re afraid of brown people because your wife swooned at Pedro Pascal? Don’t worry Ben, she’s used to disappointments!
Then the pit fighter allows that we have to have immigration enforcement but if you don’t have due process, anyone can get sent to a foreign jungle prison, even you, Ben, you’re swarthy enough and maybe an ICE officer who doesn’t like your whiny voice decides to hogtie you and sorry, if there’s no due process you can’t do squat about it.
In other words, stake out a coherent position (liberal or moderate, whatever you believe) but fight like hell and box in the Right as the extreme and stupid and endlessly mockable position. Show the public how hard you’ll fight fir what you believe, and that what you’re fighting against is hot garbage, and—here’s the secret the high paid consultants miss—voters will love that even if they don’t entirely agree on your specific policy.
consistency is a WAYYYYY underrated value. I need to know that the you of today is gonna be the same you tomorrow. Mamdani aces that test. he has said some things that some people don't like but he NEVER backs away or apologizes ...because he fucking MEANS what he says. He doesn't play stupid weasel games and he has bee rewarded bigly for it. NY's love for that guy is off the chain
Especially as voters will tend to place you on a certain part of the political spectrum just based on your party. They just won’t see a Democrat as tougher on immigration than a Republican. But if you can articulate why you stand where you do, and portray the Republicans as out of step, you do far better.
I do think Newsom is trying to separate guys like Kirk/Shapiro from MAGA. That's not just the "good" Republican myth but it's also inherently classist. Note that he didn't have Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert on his podcast.
If he’s that delusional then he’s really not up for the moment. Even if he did get Shapiro to come around, what impact would that even have? He was anti-Trump before he learned in 2020 that his grift would be more successful just going along with the crowd. He’s not going to bring along any constituency and certainly not for a blue state liberal.
Now I may complain about Newsom a lot, BUT...I will also say Democrats have a very, very narrow rhetorical space to operate in. I think of, for example, Tim Walz who has had excellent messaging on this continued siege by the low-rent Sturmabteilung that is ICE. Yet the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum took issue with him using an analogy about Anne Frank.
Voters reward Republican pit fighting because there's no protection for the people that party attacks—they serve the unreconstructed after all. Voters apparently like pit fighting by spreading blood libel about innocent Haitian-Americans, after all. They like when Republicans use George Soros as a shibboleth. The Project 2025 and its funders was all pooh-poohed as Democrats being dramatic and making it all up, for clout.
I am hoping the mocking will work, even with the suppression of our social media reach by rightwing algorithms. I am hoping that your strategy will pay off.
That "U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum" thingy? Apparently the heads of that org are ALSO made up of presidential appointees. Trump fired and replaced the top dogs of that museum...
Democrats operate in narrow rhetorical space because they choose to. Look how Hillary reacted when bad faith actors and gullible Democrats heard her say “deplorables” (weak tea anyway, just say “scumbags”). Look how Kamala just laughed when Trump said “they’re eating the dogs” rather than “you’re the dumbest bastard I ever saw”. Look how Tim Walz reined himself in after briefly getting headway for calling Republicans “weird”.
They’re afraid to unleash the anger, mockery and fire necessary to break through media coverage (yes media prefers Republicans but they love ratings more) and give voice to what is truly honest about this moment in time (establishment Dems usually speak of Republicans as though it’s 1996 and they’re fighting Bob Dole). Makes them sound like politicians, makes them sound insincere, makes them sound weak. Voters hate these things even if the pols are right on the money for every policy preference.
We need a pit fighter who will take it to the Republicans and keep them on the defensive for a change. Speaking for myself, I'm sick of Democrats backing away from a principled fight. I'm sick of mealy-mouthed, kumbaya-we-all-have-to get-along statements. If some Democrats can't figure out that this is a true existential moment, they need to get out of the way and let someone lead. Stop letting Republicans win the messaging battle, and pull together.
IMHO, Newsom is more ambition than principle. He's better than nothing, but he ain't my choice.
He’s falling for this idea that Democrats have to find just the right policy position and that will win over the voters. If that was true, Democrats would have won a lot more elections.
It’s about showing strength, making the best argument for your beliefs, and contrasting the enemy as the real extreme, and weird, and stupid. Interestingly this same strategy often works for Republicans!
Yes, his comments to US allies really pissed me off. Get your own house in order, smarmy dude. If he didn’t have trump to fight against, he’d clearly be just another one of the right-coddling spineless white dudes half-assedly working as a “Democrat” and throwing anyone who doesn’t look like him under the bus.
Newsom is an asshole, and i still don't want to vote for him for President in 2028 - but dammit, he's right. Europe needed a wake-up call.
I keep getting a “kier Starmer in a nicer suit” vibe from Gavin Newsome.
They’re probably due a massive sweeping mandate victory provided we’re allowed to have a presidential election in 2028. If you can’t offer anyone any actual reason to vote for you beyond “the default other guy” Labour shows those leads can evaporate quickly.
Gavin is not the answer. He talks tough but doesn't back it up. As the Texans say, he's all hat and no cattle.
I wouldn't say that's true-he got California redistricted-but there are other reasons not to vote for him.
Kirk and Shapiro are both grifters. The only suitable reason to have grifters on your podcast is to absolutely hammer them with their own hypocrisy and utterly deflate their egos live, for everyone to witness. Newsom wasn't adept enough to grasp that opportunity with both hands because, what...he thought right-wingers that support Kirk and Shapiro might plausibly cast a vote for a democrat in some dystopian future? GTFOH with that.
I'll admit, I have found some of the zingers from his social media team to be internet gold. Voting for a Newsom presidency? Only if he's the last candidate standing because I sure as hell am not voting for that smarmy douchnozzle Vance or any brain-worm ridden Trump clone.
Thank you for writing about this snake. I've never trusted Newsom. I love that his media team is standing up to Trump, but he's a snake. Thank you for recognizing it.
The best person for the job of POTUS HAD to go and get born in Uganda...
If a 34 count felon is allowed to hold the highest office in the world, I think we can do away with the 'natural born' restriction for POTUS as well
Mamdani 2028
That's not happening no matter where he was born.
I beg to differ but it's a moot point anyway
He's been a good governor, but he's never going to be a reformer, a fighter, anti-corporation, anti-corruption, nor a progressive.
And I think he suffers from the same narcissism that Trump does.
He is not what is needed in the post-Trump political world.
Ah but he gives the sick dunks what Democrats like to hear, which is 'fighting.' So presumably, certain people say, he's going to give the Fight™ to Republicans and "meet the moment." Even when he cuddles with fash.
I will keep saying it, the Internet Faves with the positions that are right best start declaring now and get out in front or Newsom is going to win nomination by default. And all the people praising his sick dunks are suddenly going to remember the shitty things he's done after a nomination has been secured and it's too late to pull out.
It’d be awful if he got it by default but every ambitious Dem is on notice—the thing people like about him is his attacks on Trump, and if they don’t learn to do it better than he does, he’ll get it.
Gone are the days of white papers and “I have a plan for that” and “let’s take down the temperature.” They’re killing citizens in the streets, kidnapping people with no due process, and pretending it’s 1996 looks delusional.
Yes I agree. The tired twitter statements, the sternly worded letters, the "I have a plan for that" campaigns are toast, at least for the foreseeable future. Newsom has traction because he regularly and publicly spits in Trump's face and anyone who wants the nomination for 2028 is going to have show some of that same ability to fight fire with fire.
Yes, Newsom could be like 2016 Trump, who GOP voters embraced because they wanted someone who would rain hell on Democrats.
Not just the GOP. Lots of crossover Obama voters, and Bernie Sanders served the same purpose on the Dem side even if he couldn't overcome the thumb the DNC put on the Clinton scale.
Yep—and his Dem opponents would be wise to remember that every complaint from Ted Cruz that Trump wasn’t a real conservative on various policy positions fell on deaf ears.
this is my read as well
THANK YOU! Newsom has a social media team that gets in some zingers against trump and that seems to be enough for some people. Newsome is very opposed to a wealth tax, no friend to the homeless or trans people, I have no idea what his position is on Gaza and I bet he doesn't either. Not this guy, let's keep looking. Or hell, let's elect President Cortez. I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for AOC.
Talk about constantly switching lanes. Whichever way the wind blows seems to be Newsome’s strategy. If he can so easily be swayed right now about ICE, he can also swing the other way on other key points.
“Abolish ICE” is now the moderate position because when an organization has been turned into a president’s private stormtroopers and operates outside the law, it must be abolished. You can create a new, lawful agency to handle immigration enforcement and use existing law enforcement organs in the meantime.
And no, consultant dipshits, voters won’t react to this like they did to “abolish the police” because unlike the police, ICE hasn’t been around that long and people don’t associate it with nabbing and preventing criminals. Most voters only know ICE for what it’s been in the news for lately. We got along without it for centuries.
Most average voters (esp. in the suburbs) have had positive experiences with the police. They have contacted the police when in need, etc. ICE is just a bunch of thugs.
Right? My 92 year old Trump hating mother is certain *her* local police would never engage in the tactics she sees on TV because they are always nice to her.
Yep—and “abolish police” polled poorly even among the urban lower class (and POC) communities it was aimed at. It sounds nuanced but to a lot of people “the police” evokes something positive in protecting them and their neighborhoods from crime, and often even know cops personally who they liked, while at the same time they wanted the cops to be accountable and not be allowed to abuse citizens. It was a complicated relationship that didn5 lend itself to an easy solution.
ICE though is new (like 2001 new), doesn’t keep the citizens safe (unless you buy the idea that every immigrant is a “Breaking Bad” stereotype), and our only interactions are seeing them abuse people. They’re now intrinsically linked with Trump, clearly lawless and incompetent, so voters are just not equating that with the police.
I don't recall 'abolish the police'...I definitely remember 'defund the police' though...
Democrats talk about "black voters as the base" but often their positions are heavily influenced by the academic left. No one would seriously think that someone like Frasier Crane speaks for working class white guys but Dems too often think this same for POC. It influences their positions on policing and immigration.
Absolutely. How many non-college educated people even know what CRT or DEI or “intersectionality” mean? Most people regardless of race have very common lifetime struggles and a smart group would find ways to tie them together even where they differ (e.g., abuse by the police falls disproportionately on young male POCs but even people who are white, female or older can be made to relate to the fear of what an unaccountable cop can do to you, especially if you live in a poor area and don’t have the money fir a good lawyer). But the academic activists can’t see past their own bubbles to even get how their supposed target audience thinks, let alone how to communicate with them.
"CRT or DEI or “intersectionality”" were only issues in the election because the REPUBLICANS created great bogey men issues out of it.
CRT was an academic law school subject. DEI had been a completely anodyne corporate HR term since the 80's until Chrs Rufo twisted and weaponized the terms for GOP advantage.
Stop falling into the Murc's Law trap and place the blam where it belongs.
I think this perhaps understates how these terms were weaponized because they were key concepts fueling mainstream liberalism. It would frustrate me to see Democrats say that CRT was not taught in schools when CRT was very much behind how many schools were run (I live in Portland, for example, but it's not just here). Same with DEI, which the average person probably associates with HR gibberish that frustrates them in their normal job.
Same with trans issues...Republicans started a campaign against them and as democrats we had no CHOICE but to defend them (and still do). trans people and public restrooms had existed together for decades but NOW its a problem?
Rs greatest 'talent' is being able to force us into having to defend ourselves...THAT'S how they haqve almost full control of the narrative...THEY decide what 'everyone is talking about'...Its infuriating. I don't know how to defeat that
Yup...You do what B Sanders and Z Mamdani do...You keep the message lean and simple and repeat it OVER and OVER again and you refuse to get derailed by bad faith shit stirring questions. Always bring the message home. Mamdani is ESPECIALLY adept at this...
And, talk like a normal person, not like you just ran your statements through a team of advisers.
I am 95% convinced that the consultants dems use are secretly on the republican payroll...
That sort of backsliding makes me think he can’t fill the still-open role of Democratic attack dog. They need a pit fighter and a pit fighter would have started from the premise that immigration is a good thing, not just for compassionate reasons but because they fuel our economic growth and our long history of massive immigration is the reason we’re so much richer than other countries and why, Ben, do you hate America getting wealthier? Is it because you’re afraid of brown people because your wife swooned at Pedro Pascal? Don’t worry Ben, she’s used to disappointments!
Then the pit fighter allows that we have to have immigration enforcement but if you don’t have due process, anyone can get sent to a foreign jungle prison, even you, Ben, you’re swarthy enough and maybe an ICE officer who doesn’t like your whiny voice decides to hogtie you and sorry, if there’s no due process you can’t do squat about it.
In other words, stake out a coherent position (liberal or moderate, whatever you believe) but fight like hell and box in the Right as the extreme and stupid and endlessly mockable position. Show the public how hard you’ll fight fir what you believe, and that what you’re fighting against is hot garbage, and—here’s the secret the high paid consultants miss—voters will love that even if they don’t entirely agree on your specific policy.
exactly this^
consistency is a WAYYYYY underrated value. I need to know that the you of today is gonna be the same you tomorrow. Mamdani aces that test. he has said some things that some people don't like but he NEVER backs away or apologizes ...because he fucking MEANS what he says. He doesn't play stupid weasel games and he has bee rewarded bigly for it. NY's love for that guy is off the chain
Especially as voters will tend to place you on a certain part of the political spectrum just based on your party. They just won’t see a Democrat as tougher on immigration than a Republican. But if you can articulate why you stand where you do, and portray the Republicans as out of step, you do far better.
I do think Newsom is trying to separate guys like Kirk/Shapiro from MAGA. That's not just the "good" Republican myth but it's also inherently classist. Note that he didn't have Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert on his podcast.
If he’s that delusional then he’s really not up for the moment. Even if he did get Shapiro to come around, what impact would that even have? He was anti-Trump before he learned in 2020 that his grift would be more successful just going along with the crowd. He’s not going to bring along any constituency and certainly not for a blue state liberal.
Now I may complain about Newsom a lot, BUT...I will also say Democrats have a very, very narrow rhetorical space to operate in. I think of, for example, Tim Walz who has had excellent messaging on this continued siege by the low-rent Sturmabteilung that is ICE. Yet the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum took issue with him using an analogy about Anne Frank.
Voters reward Republican pit fighting because there's no protection for the people that party attacks—they serve the unreconstructed after all. Voters apparently like pit fighting by spreading blood libel about innocent Haitian-Americans, after all. They like when Republicans use George Soros as a shibboleth. The Project 2025 and its funders was all pooh-poohed as Democrats being dramatic and making it all up, for clout.
I am hoping the mocking will work, even with the suppression of our social media reach by rightwing algorithms. I am hoping that your strategy will pay off.
That "U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum" thingy? Apparently the heads of that org are ALSO made up of presidential appointees. Trump fired and replaced the top dogs of that museum...
Oh, that explains a lot then!
Stephen Miller is Jewish apparently so it kind of maps out. Lol!
Democrats operate in narrow rhetorical space because they choose to. Look how Hillary reacted when bad faith actors and gullible Democrats heard her say “deplorables” (weak tea anyway, just say “scumbags”). Look how Kamala just laughed when Trump said “they’re eating the dogs” rather than “you’re the dumbest bastard I ever saw”. Look how Tim Walz reined himself in after briefly getting headway for calling Republicans “weird”.
They’re afraid to unleash the anger, mockery and fire necessary to break through media coverage (yes media prefers Republicans but they love ratings more) and give voice to what is truly honest about this moment in time (establishment Dems usually speak of Republicans as though it’s 1996 and they’re fighting Bob Dole). Makes them sound like politicians, makes them sound insincere, makes them sound weak. Voters hate these things even if the pols are right on the money for every policy preference.
3 people right off who don't have that problem...Jasmine Crockett, Ilhan Omar and of course the flagship/ canary of the progressive caucus, AOC
100% this!
We need a pit fighter who will take it to the Republicans and keep them on the defensive for a change. Speaking for myself, I'm sick of Democrats backing away from a principled fight. I'm sick of mealy-mouthed, kumbaya-we-all-have-to get-along statements. If some Democrats can't figure out that this is a true existential moment, they need to get out of the way and let someone lead. Stop letting Republicans win the messaging battle, and pull together.
IMHO, Newsom is more ambition than principle. He's better than nothing, but he ain't my choice.
He’s falling for this idea that Democrats have to find just the right policy position and that will win over the voters. If that was true, Democrats would have won a lot more elections.
It’s about showing strength, making the best argument for your beliefs, and contrasting the enemy as the real extreme, and weird, and stupid. Interestingly this same strategy often works for Republicans!
Yes, his comments to US allies really pissed me off. Get your own house in order, smarmy dude. If he didn’t have trump to fight against, he’d clearly be just another one of the right-coddling spineless white dudes half-assedly working as a “Democrat” and throwing anyone who doesn’t look like him under the bus.