I’ve seen what feels like a hundred posts complaining about people saying we need to support Gavin Newsome no matter what but I have yet to see someone saying we need to support Gavin Newsome no matter what.
I have absolutely seen it.
There’s a big difference between:
“We need to support Gavin Newsom no matter what.”
And
“You don’t need to comment on every post about Newsom trolling Trump by talking shit about him. You can support a thing he’s doing without supporting him.”
Support him for what?
For an eventual presidential run. This is what the DNC does. Spend three years finding the worse technically electable person they can, then pressure the left into voting for them because otherwise the republicans will destroy everything.
I personally had many people pile on me when I criticized him during the peak of his meming on Trump. But it does feel like the tide has turned against him a bit now.
They love the pointless, performative shit.
Look at what Newsom is actually doing: presiding over a state where, for the vast majority of his constituents, it’s becoming unaffordable to live in while at the same time he is actively criminalizing homelessness.
Absolutely. And he vetoed a lot of great bills seeking to address many of the state’s crises.
He also vetoed ranked choice voting
Feels kind of manufactured, honestly. I’m also trying to find evidence that he’s a transphobic piece of shit, but it seems like he’s pretty good on trans rights.
I think this post is that “sowing division” thing we’ve heard so much about.
He went on
Joe Rogan’sCharlie Kirk’s show and said he doesn’t think trans women should be in sports. Solidarity only goes one way for him.Edit: the deleted comment under this by Madzielle is the work of a coward. Post for real and stand by your (shitty) opinion. Don’t delete it immediately just so it hits my inbox and you suffer no community consequences from it.
He basically capitulated to the claims that “Democrats supporting trans rights have caused them to lose support”.
That’s not even me excusing him. It’s pointing out that he’s spineless and caves under pressure, which might be even more important than whether he supports trans rights.
Rogan would be one thing since he’s a bit independently minded it was even worse it was Charlie Kirk. No reason to give him that audience.
Thanks, corrected.
Apparently the climate, the constitution, and every child in Gaza need to die on the hill of trans people in sports.
Democrats already sacrificed the climate and Gaza. Now they’re moving on to sacrificing trans people.
You know we can find other candidates to back than Newsom, right?
Fuck Newsom. I never liked him - mostly because he is a mental lightweight. The point is we should not make trans people in sports a litmus test for all candidates.
“Oh he isn’t on board with trans athletes? Piece of shit! Next!”
There are in fact more important things to worry about.
The point is we should not make trans people in sports a litmus test for all candidates.
Name a single political jurisdiction that banned trans kids from playing sports and was content with stopping there. Name one.
This is a slippery slope fallacy. I say sports isn’t worth throwing every single other concern out the window, and you say ah but it’s not about sports, that’s just how it begins - if we don’t stand up for sports now, tomorrow they’ll be shoveling trans kids into crematoria.
I won’t engage that faulty line of reasoning.
deleted by creator
Exactly. I support Newsom because he fights and would even support even Republicans. We need everyone.
Most Democrats don’t do anything beyond nice speeches and many don’t even bother with that.
Does he fight? What’s he actually done beyond steal Trump’s vibes?
He put proposition 50 this November as a response to Texas move to get additional 5 seats, and is advocating for other governor’s to do the same thing.
It’s literally in this thread.
It’s funny how that works on here.
This is the time for someone else to step up and be noticed by the crowd.
If that’s meant to be the DNC, okay.
If that’s meant to be people who made an argument for coalition politics and not straight up forfeiting an election to the worst presidential candidate anyone could find lying around to stuff into a diaper and a suit and put behind a podium… that’s not really the same thing.
Gavin Newsom is not, at the moment, running for president. He’s not sitting opposite some extreme right-winger serving as a disappointing but necessary defensive line between us and things getting much worse. He’s an asshole who happens to be a Democrat and is the current governor of a state where he’s actively making things worse. He, like Harris, would clearly be leaning toward the right to try to win center votes.
The reasonable strategic move to make for anyone who wants the government in the US to shift to the left is to make it clear that while his humiliating Trump is useful, he is not a viable candidate. Supporting him now would be backing a lame horse that’s literally still in the stable during a time where we should be finding the healthiest, fastest horse we possibly can. That is not the same as if he were in an election right now and were the only way to prevent a Trump from getting into office.
I’m trans. I hope Newsom falls off a cliff. But if he had been running against Trump instead of Harris I would have held my nose and checked the box, because strategy isn’t about throwing a fit until you get the scenario you want, it’s about doing what you can with the hand you’ve got.
Right now what we can do is toss his ass away and draw another card from the deck before we end up being forced to play him.
There we go, that’s the most complete and correct answer. High five internet friend.
because strategy isn’t about throwing a fit until you get the scenario you want, it’s about doing what you can with the hand you’ve got.
This is an important thing to point out. I am some what reminded of the meme where the democrats are represented as a stopper that keeps the a wheel from moving back left. I get their complaint and it is valid, but abstaining from elections is doing a similar function. It is also rather privileged as they are not feeling the pressure for why harm minimization is important.
On a somewhat historical approach revolutionaries are oppressed and kept down, and that does mean that those in power have implicitly give up all bargaining power by refusing dialog. I feel that in a sense we have done similar to ourselves electorally. We won’t participate and organize there, so no one will ever take us seriously and our issues are never heard. Voting lesser evil is not a long term solution, but it is lower effort than organizing a new third party. Even still it is less effort than picking up a rifle and holding down a trench. I get that in the discourse it feels like the fastest way (unfounded assumption that war is ever fast)and that sentiments for a total revolution is always around the corner. Given that we won’t have any third party organization now I don’t see how it will form and put our ideas out in more chaos. Presumably the most informed on the subject matters and theory are also the most bought in and going to be leaders, who cannot be bothered to commit an evening to the lowest effort civic engagement.
I think we have some good leaders in AOC and Mamdami to start some foundations, but I fear apathy might mean no shows and they genuinely lose their seats or have to make even more compromises than they otherwise have to. I hope we can all go to primaries and vote for progressive candidates (even encourage them to go third party if they have to). Also remember that we have more than just presidential elections happening on the same ballot.
It’s simple.
Vote for the Democratic nominee against the GOP in the general election.
If you live somewhere the Dems tend to win elections, vote in the Democratic primaries to change the party little by little.
If you live somewhere the GOP tends to win, vote in the GOP primaries to try and at least get rid of the MAGA Republicans and THEN vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.
Gradual incrementalism is precisely what got us into this mess, so it isn’t that simple. So long as the Dems are controlled by their donors, they will never willingly let an actual leftist in. See Mamdani. Ratchet effect then ensures both parties grow ever rightward.
We need meaningful leftist opposition in power if the US is going to survive. I think transforming the DNC into that is a much more difficult task than anyone cares to admit, and the delusion that we can do it without forming a new party entirely is just bringing us closer to inevitable collapse once the capital owners have stolen everything from us.
Please, inform us plebs on how not voting for the Democratic nominee will help improve things.
No what got us here is no one voting. Literally go look at participation between elections.
Why is no one voting? Could it be that making people choose between 2 shit candidates doesn’t work?
The single most successful third party presidential candidate since 1900 was Teddy Roosevelt, who had already been president twice, when he ran under the Bull Moose Party ticket. He got 29% of the popular vote, spilt the Republican vote, and handed the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
The second most successful third party presidential candidate since 1900 was Ross Perot in 1992. He got 18.6% of the popular vote, drew conservative voters away from George H. W. Bush, and handed the presidency to Bill Clinton.
Third party candidates by all means should run for local and down-ballot offices, but above a certain level, if you haven’t got a realistic plan for how to win beyond wishful thinking, then the responsible move is to run as hard as you can in the primary, try to drag the primary electorate in the direction you want it to move, and endorse the major party candidate that most closely aligns with your views. If you aren’t even hitting twenty percent in the polls leading up to the general, then you’re acting as a spoiler and helping your most-hated opponent win.
You explained this well. You should copy and paste it into every post about Dems vs lefts vs liberals.
Gradual incrementalism is precisely what got us into this mess
What got us into this mess was the resounding success of gradual incrementalism in the hands of the right. We didn’t get where we are spontaneously, it’s the result of decades of preparation by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
It works, you just have to commit to it.
Aren’t you locked in to the party you’re registered with, specifically to avoid this scenario?
in most states, you have to register with one party or the other for primaries, so you can only vote in one primary. But in the general election, you aren’t required to cast a ballot for the party for which you’re registered.
Interesting, thank you!
Last I heard, Newsom was not currently a candidate for any election, criticize all you want.
ITT: Yet more righteous liberals extolling the virtues of not voting for the only party that can actually stand against the Fourth Reich, literally at all.
Force people to vote against their rights, why dont you?
They are anyways. Just because ypu choose not to vote doesnt mena youre note subjected to the result. And every vote not cast against fascism is a vote for it.
Then after many years of voting for the slightly lesser evil, you look up and realize that both candidates are fascist. You never bothered to hold the “good” side accountable, so they just kept sliding further and further into evil.
The only reason Newsom is a Democrat is because he lives in California. If he lived in Texas, he would happily be a Republican. He doesn’t actually believe in anything.
I’m not trying to force anyone to even think a particular way, let alone DO something. But when the choice is the person who literally wants you dead vs someone who’s willing to maybe marginalize you in the current political environment, I would mildly urge you to maybe kindly vote against the guy with a gun to your head who will pull the trigger when he wins. Just sayin’. Maybe focus on the marginalization issue next season before it gets to the gun to the head again. “FUCK YOU KILL ME” isn’t really the best choice in my humble opinion.
But if the guy that hates trans and homeless people becomes president do you really think that the Dems would ever again platform someone that doesn’t want a genocide in their own country? And why do people have to support the piece of shit before he gets legitimised in any way through a primary anyways?
I’m pretty sure in 2024 the Dems platformed someone who didn’t want a genocide in this country. Mamdani seems like a pretty good dude, and he’s in the general because he won the primary over said piece of shit. So the system can work. Or we can all be pessimists and let the fascists continue to run roughshod because the Democrats aren’t woke enough or whatever.
Do you mean the same Mamdani that gets hindered by establishment Dems at every chance possible? The Democrats want to maintain the economic status quo, the only time the party shows socially progressive views is when they think it profits them.
So the system can work. Or we can all be pessimists and let the fascists continue to run roughshod because the Democrats aren’t woke enough or whatever.
As I said.
Mamdani won the primary. He’s polling ridiculously high in the general. Putting people like him, Crockett, Cortez, and others like them into office is how we push back and get the policies we want. MEANWHILE we need to elect whatever other blue options we’re provided in the general including the DINOs, not protest non-vote and hand power to the Repubnicons. 3rd party candidates are spoilers. Maybe in some future they won’t be, but right now they are. I don’t understand why this is contentious. If the enemy rules, we get NOTHING. Do you not see how the country is being dismantled as we speak? There will be no righteous revolution in this country. Democracy either survives or it dies, and if it dies, it’s 1984 x Handmaid’s Tale forever.
This exactly. It’s almost like they want Trump to remain in office, or someone just like him. I’m so, so so tired of that attitude.
Meanwhile, doing absolutely nothing to propose more progressive alternatives.
I’m sure Hitler will totally understand your concerns.
Removed by mod
(hint: there’s no such thing, **********)
Yeah… this is a bannable offense by the standards of most Lemmy instances.
We haven’t even entered midterm season yet and we’re arguing about Newsom’s viability. The focus should be on midterms. We still have 2 years for a new star to shine, for a progressive to break through, for the DNC to maybe get a clue.
I’d rather hear discussions about who is best to face off against Collins, how can we take back some of the house seats where the margins are thinnest, where could we break in.
There will never be a perfect candidate for any office. You will always have issues you don’t align on. If you think you align on everything, you’re probably not looking closely enough. Vote for freedom, join the conversation and advocate for change. I have seen many politicians change their beliefs over the years, often their positions are uninformed and giving them the right information can help and assuming they know the facts helps no one.
We are all flawed. We have all made mistakes. We are all capable of change. Politicians are no less suited to making mistakes than we are.
I haven’t seen a single person whining about Newsom who’s also proposed a progressive alternative who could run in the primary.
This is when we’re supposed to bring in leftist candidates. Instead, they’ll do nothing, and then whine about the inevitable results.
who’s also proposed a progressive alternative who could run in the primary.
The onus is on potential progressive or leftist presidential candidates to show up - it’s their decision. It takes a tremendous amount of courage and boldness to enter public consciousness and face scrutiny in every direction.
Yeah, and if they don’t, we’ll just let the fascists take over
Just so people know Gavin newsom made a comment about trans children in sports.
And political influential dems have had issues with mamdani for issues ranging from tax policies (tax rich as too ambitious) to lack of stance regarding Israel
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-new-york-democrats-not-endorsing-zohran-mamdani-2092616
This is the info that’s missing.
Just tired of people dropping headline bombs with no story and just expecting others to follow suit on a dime . All this talk about echo chambers but we can’t possibly take the time to educate people.
Newsom also shills harder for corporations than Trump does which means Newsom has a real chance of winning. Whoops.
Newsom sucks but when you lie it’s just weird. Are you saying you prefer Trump?
It must be difficult constantly living in denial with paranoia, huh?
You’re going to have to elaborate. Do you really have nothing of value to say or add?
This is like trying to figure out which ocean is bigger by looking out from the shore. I just couldn’t say.
I’m blue no matter who. Fuck yeah go new York Mayor (why the fuck is this getting so much attention), fuck yeah go newsome (why the fuck is this getting so much attention before the primary has even been announced? Before the midterms…)
Blue no matter who and asking again. WHERE THE FUCK are the EPSTEIN FILES? Me and my autocorrect friend 🦆 need to know.
Blue no matter who is for the general election though. That’s still over 3 years away. I’ll be here shitting on Newsom every day up until he’s a nominee in a competitive race against a fascist.
Based
No. There are elections every year. This is another massive problem with the voting base. Ignoring all local politics. Theres more to running this country than the presidents office.
I agree people don’t pay enough attention to local elections but we’re talking about Newsom specifically here. He’s not on the ballot and likely won’t be until 2028.
Anything that isn’t a vote to remove the small fingered vulgarian is a vote FOR the small fingered vulgarian. You choose. You may not like your choices but if you don’t vote to oust him you are voting for him.
This is the type of thinking that got him there in the first place.
You want to beat him or whoever succeeds him, find someone people want to vote for
You’re 100% wrong. If there are 10 voters. 8 of them really do not like Trump. 3 vote for <alternative>, 2 do not vote because they want someone to vote for, 1 votes third party and 4 vote for Trump then Trump wins. You’re never going to get a perfect candidate and you will 100% get the candidate you don’t want.
This is how Trump got elected even though he never was a popular candidate. We play the cards we’re dealt.
The fact is trump was elected because the DNC screwed up selecting their candidate. You can’t browbeat people into voting for a candidate every single time. Trump is the DNC’s fault almost entirely.
Trump was elected because he got more votes. Period. He got more votes because more people didn’t take a stand. Period. There was a way to keep him out of office and if you didn’t do that then you contributed to his election. Period. Stop whining about perfection and do some good in the world.
You need to learn that you can’t bully people into voting for you anymore. Vote for us or everyone dies isn’t the compelling option you think it is.
I’m not bullying. I’m stating what should be obvious to anyone that went to middle school. Listening to people whine about Trump and then discovering that they helped him get elected is what drives the conversation. What you don’t like is that the people whining about the world not being perfect are the same level of problem that trump is.
No, I’m trying to tell you your actions cannot lead you to your desired outcome. You don’t see that you’re a much bigger friend to Trump than anyone who didn’t vote.
Even if Newsome skews transphobic he will be infinitely better than any Republican on the issue. We can beat up Newsome all we want now but if he “wins” the nominee acting like he’s the devil incarnate is a really dumb position to take. I would prefer a ton of other people over him but he won’t be pushing insane policies like the right is.
Even if Newsome skews transphobic he will be infinitely better than any Republican on the issue.
That’s what they said about Labor in the UK. Then the UK liberals became even more transphobic than the conservatives.
The UK has a Liberal Democrat Party and a Labour Party as well as the Conservative Party and now Reform (formerly UKIP, Farage is trying to be the smarter, more British Trump).
It’s confusing when you call Labour Liberals, because Labour is strongly in support of free universal healthcare and workers’ rights, introduced and regularly raised the minimum wage and is generally pro union. They’re considerably to the left of the American Democrats.
Having said all that, three Prime Minister, Keir Starmer seems to be the most Biden-like Prime Minister we’ve had.
They’re considerably to the left of the American Democrats.
How convenient. You’ve left out the one issue that we’re actually talking about, the rights of innocent trans people. On those, Starmer is as bad as any Republican. The UK labor party is one of the most transphobic parties in the western world. And I’m referring to them as liberals as they are, in terms of political alignment, a liberal party. And like most liberal parties, scratch them and a fascist bleeds.
Why are you insisting on calling them liberal, when the policy you’re objecting to is so illiberal?
Words have meanings, and just because you like to call centre left parties that you feel aren’t left enough liberal, it doesn’t mean the labour party is liberal. They’re just not. They’re mildy authoritarian centre left and you’re criticising them for not being liberal left.
We have a liberal democratic party in the UK, and it’s not called labour.
I know leftists like to see liberals as the enemy because they’re not left wing enough, so because the UK labour party is far too centrist for you, you call them liberals, but it makes no sense because they’re not very liberal, and the very thing you’re disagreeing with is them being the opposite of liberal!
If everything you said in the last 24 hours used the word centrist instead of liberal, it would all make sense and it would all be true, I wouldn’t be disagreeing with you at all. Think about it.
You are lib left. Your favourite enemy to criticise is the centrists and you will shit on them all day long before you have three words to say against the conservatives (which you will dismissively do after being called out on it), but for goodness sake stop calling them liberal when you’re objecting to their authoritarian policies!
The UK labor party is one of the most transphobic parties in the western world.
It seems you have no idea whatsoever about what the conservative party and the reform party are saying on this issue, and you aren’t aware that the source of the transphobic policy is our supreme court, (the members of which can be vetoed politically but selection is independent). Yes Labour and Starmer have publicly come out in favour of it, but that makes them auth, not lib.
Please try harder to get your facts straight.
You have no idea what I think about the policy because you’re too busy insisting on using the wrong word for the labour party. It’s weird and counterproductive.
But he isn’t running yet and you still have a chance of not having an asshole like him in eventual primaries.
Already pretending that he’s the best choice now is borderline stupid.
Seeing Phil Ochs in the wild is… Wild. It often feels like he’s my own personal thing, because no one knows him, even among my leftist friends
Yes, actually.
