Gavin Newsom (formerly: Joanna Newsom's cousin is a shit (allegedly))

xpost - ok, so he's got a "rep"

"Ruby, what's on the schedule for noon?" (cue porn music)

Matt Gonzalez's favorite album is Crooked Rain Crooked Rain, whereas Newsom's is Kind of Blue. Also, Gonzalez used to write a monthly column for my friend's zine. I think there's a pretty strong possibility that Gonzalez owns a few Drag City releases, regardless of whether or not he's related to the musicians.

http://www.meshsf.com/blogs/876528081_l.jpg

and Hairwatch (Also -- today's Gavin hair report: gelled. ???) says she's on the right here:

http://www.sfist.com/attachments/sfist_rita/1114272602_m.jpg

At the time, Mountz had a MySpace page that said she was 19. It now says she's 26.

But according to the Sonoma County registrar of voters, the Rohnert Park resident turned 20 on Sept. 17 -- three weeks and two days before Newsom turned 39.

I categorically refuse to believe this name is real. It is too perfect.

Sorry, I had to see it in black and white.

First the scientologist c-list actress
Then the 19 year old Aqua hostess
Then this Marin-realtress looking MILF...

Dude should be getting 1st class prime cuts, not this slop.

I don't recall that any of Willie's skanks worked in his office, or at least not on the City payroll.

lol

I just finished watching San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom apologize for having a sexual relationship with the wife of his former campaign manager, Alex Tourk."I'm deeply sorry," he said during a brief City Hall news conference.
The TV described this as "Breaking News." By what definition? I mean, really, why is this anybody's business -- except for Mr.
Newsom, Mr. Tourk, Mr. Tourk's wife (the evocatively named Ruby Rippey-Tourk), and Mr. Newsom's ex-wife.
Why is this a public matter?
Despite my less-than-stellar opinion of much of the media, I am still shocked that with Iraq continuing to implode (with January setting a deadly record for Iraqi civilian deaths, and another 61 killed today), and all the other problems facing the world, the media are willing to use up their precious air-time oxygen with pointless crap like this.
Our political and media culture clearly regards sex and scandal the same way Vince Lombardi felt about winning: it isn't everything -- it's the only thing.
This media fixation on personal peccadilloes is a perfect example of what G.K. Chesterton warned about: "If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals."
I've been writing about the need for a thick line to be drawn between public matters and private lives for years (see here, here, and here). But that hasn't stopped the never-ending cycle of public voyeurism, titillation, admission, contrition, and inevitable prime-time absolution. There was Wolf Blitzer, following up Newsom's news conference by promising: "We're going to have a lot more on this story." I bet they will. And I can already hear any number of TV news personalities clearing their throats and getting ready to usher Newsom into their broadcast confessional.
Spare me. Please.
Unless Newsom misused public funds in the course of his affair or broke some law, this isn't a matter for CNN, it's a matter for Newsom, his friends, and his therapist (if he has one).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Unless a politician has broken the law, there is only one legitimate answer to the illegitimate probing of private lives: "It's none of your business." (If the pol in question is really popular, "Go to Hell!" is an acceptable substitute.)
I am utterly uninterested in the marital fidelity of our politicians. "Does not stray" might be a wonderful attribute in a husband -- or a dog -- but history has clearly shown that it says nothing about what kind of leader a person will be.
Our politicians need to keep their private lives private, and the media need to keep their focus on what does -- and what surely does not -- constitute news. "Breaking" or otherwise.

Really.

State. Gavin ain't going to win any elections nationally anyway.

guess who just checked into "alcohol abuse" rehab:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/05/BAG4ENV8B514.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/MNGN5O12RP1.DTL

""Because the campaign laws on this are so unclear, the mayor decided the simplest and most appropriate thing to do was for him to personally pay any remaining salary to Alex Tourk until he gets a job," said Sutton."

yo, sf ilxors, how's gavin's lovelife these days??

i heard joanna's g-diddy founded welch's grape juice

lol @ g-diddy

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has made it official—he's running to become California's next governor.
The 41-year-old mayor used the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook to announce on Tuesday that he was seeking the Democratic nomination to succeed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Newsom could face 71-year-old Attorney General Jerry Brown and 64-year-old Lt. Gov. John Garamendi in next year's Democratic primary. Brown was governor from 1975 to 1983.

Other Democrats mentioned as possible contenders include 56-year-old Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and 75-year-old U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

http://www.nathanscripps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/gavin_newsom_oggling1.jpg

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/images/photos/new_years_eve_061231/mw2w5902_std.jpg

I'll probably vote for this guy in the primary, not gonna lie.

Gavin Newsom has always reminded me of Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho

I'll probably vote for this guy in the primary, not gonna lie.

Over Jerry Brown????

this guy is gonna fail so hard.

American Psycho resemblance has been widely discussed

I'm not voting for him.

he will hook u up w chix & drinx

yeah I am so not voting for this jackass. guy has accomplished nothing

really hope villaraigosa runs too for maximum lolz

I would probably vote for Gary Coleman if he chose to run again.

villaraigosa vs. newsom would be a great matchup of foot-in-mouth narcissist lols

coupla bros just chasing tail

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9f8lGPn6xEc/SZsEOaDe-pI/AAAAAAAAAk4/7GfAVuwtruI/s320/Villaraigosa+and+Newsome.jpg

I believe the technical term is "cooze-hound"

this picture is fucking awesome

http://www.nathanscripps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/gavin_newsom_oggling1.jpg

"the mayor at work"

xp Shakey: Gavin has accomplished things, but a lot of those things are lame, i.e. Banning tobacco sales at Walgreens.

I had hopes he could actually mediate between the loonier aspects of the progressives and downtown. Instead, he's accomplished almost nothing. As a man, he's a heck of a lot nicer to meet than Willie - he's actually pretty personable - though Agnos was even nicer in ways.

Didn't he accomplish universal health insurance and wireless for everyone in SF?

lolz

I don't want to google and disillusion that.

xp Eazy: No. He did raise the city minimum wage, which led to a lawsuit by the Restaurant Association, because it didn't allow for a lower amount for tipped employees, as the federal and state minimum wages do. As far as the health insurance thing goes, employers are supposed to offer health insurance or pay into a fund for insurance to adminstered by the City. Not sure how that's actually panning out, as no one at my organization works in SF enough days to qualify. Newsom did ban tobacco sales at Walgreens - just Walgreens. He also refused to participate in "Question Time," as mandated by the voters.

I'm all for smoking bans in public places and stuff like that but the Walgreen's thing is so weird - why punish that particular retailer?

xp Shakey: It always gets me when people in SF complain about smoking because of the smell, when a significant portion of the streets of the city smells like urine. People complain about Oakland's problems, but Oakland actually smells better than SF.

I propose that the mayor ban urinating on Walgreens

(but you probably don't wanna get me started on the tobacco industry - I don't really care about the smell, its just a public health issue for me)

xp Shakey: fair enough.

campaign strategy?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=39093

I live in LA, so I'm unfamiliar with this "Northern Villaraigosa" reputation; maybe I should have looked into him and his history before becoming a supporter-of-sorts who signed up for campaign emails.

I'm still waiting for that immediate input opportunity his campaign manager spoke of.

Newsom+Villaraigosa are polling at the same level as Jerry Brown

that's a 'plus', not an 'and'

xp gabbneb: you might get to vote on what color tie he should wear

or i might get to vote in the primary

The end of the dream, blah blah blah.

Well that's one less jerk I won't have to think about not voting for.

such a slimeball

Is this cause virtually none of the unions backed him and were holding out for Jerry Brown?

Interesting that comes out the day after the Brown recorded phone coversations...

"who has been seen as a leading contender to be the next governor of California"

lulz

I can't believe Jerry Brown's our nominee. (Not that I would prefer Gavin.)

At least old people will vote for him, right?

i kinda regret voting for him for mayor

Jerry Brown that is, not Gavin

Time for the suede denim secret police?

thing is, a lot of Newsom's mayoral policies remind me of that song

sort of rocking a christian bale-type self-serious face in the picture at that link

He'll hack up some woman while listening to Phil Collins tonight, no doubt about it.

that's what Project Homeless Connect is really about

fwiw, in case anyone hasn't noticed there are still tons of crazy homeless people pissing all over the city

way to go mister mayor!

he can't hack them all up at once

Well done Gavin.

someone please intercut this with the Christian Bale meltdown.

this movie doesn't have a happy ending

by which I mean, this dude is ripe for a very messy, public, career and life-destroying meltdown

maybe he'll end being a serial killer.

So slimy.

http://images.artistdirect.com/Images/nad/video/tribune/74686/74686_bg.jpg

and that's just his hair gel!

by which I mean, this dude is ripe for a very messy, public, career and life-destroying meltdown

Didn't he already have one?

I mean an even worse one! Probably involving public nudity, crying, violence, or some combo thereof

Can't say I've been following him too closely, but wow is he a class 'A' douche.

Gavin's class "A" all the way!

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_AndrewD/newsom_skates.jpg

no meltdown, but his star has certainly fizzled out completely. the once-and-future governor seems to be barely a politician now.

He's running...

hmm, Gavin has some tough words for Trump. Meanwhile, Joanna refuses to put out a new album. Don't make me reconsider my ranking!

there's no fucking way in hell that Newsom will ever be president... maybe Secretary of State, or UN ambassador, but POTUS? No fucking way bro, don't waste our time

welp, i learned just this second that these two are related

lol same

its even weirder to me that she's married to Andy Samburg. I mean they seem like nice people it just feels like if say Bjork and Chris Farley were dating in the 90s

chris farley in tuomi böy coming to theatres soon

Trump has now called for Newsom's arrest lol

Newsom should call for Trump's arrest lol

its even weirder to me that she's married to Andy Samburg

didn't they buy Bela Lugosi's mansion or something? I would totally buy Bela Lugosi's mansion if I had the bread

honestly pisses me off that the Dems are so feckless that this fuckin guy is the one we have to rally around

I honestly have never heard any democrats rally around Newsom... he had the early victory with gay marriage in San Francisco, he's been a mostly competent gov of the most populous state, but he inspires no one... and his Kimberly Guilfoyle connection is positively repulsive

welp, i learned just this second that these two are related

― alpine static

same. i'm glad he's actually bothering to oppose trump. he's still a shit.

Opposing Trump is better than his stupid podcast where he was talking to Charlie Kirk and the like

Ranking the words of this thread title in order of absolute stupid garbage, from least-stupid to most-stupid, insofar as the intention of this thread:

1. Newsom
2. shit
3. (allegedly)
4. is
5. a
6. cousin
7. Joanna

Joanna Newsom's cousin is a shit (allegedly)

(xpost) yeah but he was just doing that like 2 weeks ago.

But it was good to see the state turn around and sue the administration to prevent it from cutting funding over trans athletes today (and then sue them again over the national guard).

his stupid podcast has had Newt Gingrich and Dr. Phil on. within the last two weeks!

i didn't even know andy samberg had a podcast

honestly pisses me off that the Dems are so feckless that this fuckin guy is the one we have to rally around

― frogbs, Monday, June 9, 2025 1:22 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

source? i fucking hate this guy, definitely not going to rally around him

Yeah, but he's our shit

i'm not actually sure who "my shit" is. not gavin newsom. uh... robert fripp? maybe?

Newsom Tells Nation That Trump Is Destroying American Democracy

By Laurel Rosenhall
Reporting from Sacramento
June 10, 2025, 10:11 p.m. ET

Gov. Gavin Newsom made the case in a televised address Tuesday evening that President Trump’s decisions to send military forces to immigration protests in Los Angeles have put the nation at the precipice of authoritarianism.

The California governor urged Americans to stand up to Mr. Trump, calling it a “perilous moment” for democracy and the country’s long-held legal norms.
“California may be first, but it clearly won’t end here,” Mr. Newsom said, speaking to cameras from a studio in Los Angeles. “Other states are next. Democracy is next.”

“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes — the moment we’ve feared has arrived,” he added.

Mr. Newsom spoke on the fifth day of protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids that have sent fear and anger through many communities in Southern California. He said Mr. Trump had “inflamed a combustible situation” by taking over California’s National Guard, and by calling up 4,000 troops and 700 Marines.

The governor is considered a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, and his Tuesday night speech, called “Democracy at a Crossroads,” sounded national in scope. It aired on some national networks and on Mr. Newsom’s social media accounts, with audio problems in the opening minutes.

The current political standoff has made it possible for Mr. Newsom to have a wider platform, and he has jousted with President Trump and Republicans for several days in interviews and on social media.

“Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves.,” Mr. Newsom said in his speech. “But they do not stop there. Trump and his loyalists thrive on division because it allows them to take more power and exert even more control.”

The address was an unusual move for Mr. Newsom, who has dyslexia and dislikes reading from a teleprompter to deliver formal speeches. But he has been using every communication channel possible to raise alarms about the extraordinary measures Mr. Trump has taken to mobilize the military for domestic uses.

Not since the civil rights movement in the 1960s has a president sent National Guard troops to quell unrest without the support of the state’s governor.

“I ask everyone to take the time to reflect on this perilous moment,” he said, “a president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetrating a unified assault on American traditions.”

gavin cuomo otm

Who would you have in his place this week?

i'd prefer a ton of people in his place, but (for some reason!) none of them have any standing in the democratic party apart from aoc

at any rate, continue going off, hair guy

What would you want to see them do this week?

i'd like to see them come out against the kidnapping of people by masked individuals who may or may not be federal agents and may or may not have warrants

Come out how? Through a speech?

possibly even show up to a protest in person!

alabama's senator has said that he should be arrested; the speaker of the house has said that he should be tarred and feathered. FUCKING FIGHT BACK

my bad for assuming the governor of california had any political power at all i guess

"“Trump is pulling a military dragnet all across Los Angeles. Well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals, his agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses.”

are you suggesting gavin should just fold up in the face of this military incursion?

this is an *opportunity* for him to be the face of the resistance to this incredible federal overreach. chuck schumer is fucking useless. if gavin shows the slightest hint of balls people might even forgive him hosting complete assholes on his podcast. although i won't

in any case i apologize; this is exactly why i do not read the american politics threads

also joanna newsom is v. pretty ant talented, and andy samberg is handsome and funny, and i'm sure they are a wonderful couple

What would you want to see them do this week?

― the way out of (Eazy)

i know i wasn't being asked this question, but honestly? honestly, democrats working on a national level, i'd like to see them fuckin' quit. because the truth is they don't have meaningful political power right now. on a state level, maybe sometimes. on a national level... if they had power, the shit that's been happening wouldn't be happening.

to be clear, if anyone's asking themselves "big talk, why don't you quit _your_ job, kate"... i did, three months ago. because, among other reasons, doing compliance work for a private health insurance company wasn't something i could continue to do in good conscience. i might suggest that perhaps senators in the US Congress might be on a more financially stable footing than i am.

anyway, i guess i'm gonna show up to the rally on the 14th. i got pretty bad social anxiety and don't really enjoy being around large groups of people, but, well, there's still this myth about rule being by "implied consent of the governed" and not "monopoly on the legitimate use of force", and i'm kinda interested in finding out how much legitimacy the president has, when it comes to the use of force. cuz if he can just order us troops to fire on people, and troops will obey those orders, and the american people will accept that he has a right to order americans killed, and the troops have an obligation to kill americans if he orders them to? i'm a fuckin' dead woman.

preemptive apology/retraction. quite honestly, i mean, i don't know _what_ the hell is going on. i don't have access to a lot of reliable sources. i have access to plenty of _unreliable_ sources, but not a lot of reliable ones. i bought shorts today. i went out to the local russian restaurant for lunch and had some sour cherry, i don't know, pierogies or something. they were good. went over to a friend's house and watched _the pirates of penzance_ (1983) and _little shop of horrors_ (director's cut). tried to watch a 23-minute video essay on "the worst american sports team" but only got two minutes in. i worry and there's nobody there i trust to tell me what the fuck is happening. so i get things wrong a lot. people say "oh the president has deployed the military and the national guard in LA" and i don't know what that _means_. i'm supposed to go see a local wrestling show saturday. a bar near my home is having a ten-band queer punk rock show saturday. the world is a weird place. does gavin newsom know what he's doing? more than i know what i'm doing, presumably. hopefully. i'm just, you know, trying to navigate the fog of peace.

Good living to make time for cherry perogies and live queer punk, for sure.

i didn't even know andy samberg had a podcast

was this a joke? the podcast with charlie kirk and dr. phil is newsom's

(also samberg does have a podcast with seth meyers, apparently)

joanna newsom has a podcast with charlie kirk and dr. phil?

(that _was_ a joke, or at least an attempt at one)

They play harp I hear

this is an *opportunity* for him to be the face of the resistance to this incredible federal overreach.

The only thing Gavin Newsom is or will ever be the face of is Gavin Newsom.

otm. all i see is a narcissist using this as an opportunity to make a name for himself on the national stage. i don't think he believes in democracy or anything else. he just believes in gavin newsom.

also yeah it was a joke xp

can we change the title of this thread? it keeps getting me excited that there's some Joanna N news, plus it feels unfair for her to be tarnished by the brush of her slimy shit cousin

let's give it a title from another existing ILX thread that makes it obvious that it's about Gavin

And if you come and see me
You will upset the order
You cannot come and see me
For I set myself apart
But when you come and see me
In California
You cross the border of my heart

Gazin Newcoombes

plus it feels unfair for her to be tarnished by the brush of her slimy shit cousin

hey now, it says allegedly!

can we change the title of this thread? it keeps getting me excited that there's some Joanna N news, plus it feels unfair for her to be tarnished by the brush of her slimy shit cousin

Thank you Lavator for saying something, it's actually been really bothering me-- not because I'm particularly excited for Joanna News, more that I think that her cousinhood to this guy is not-relevant to her own music/personhood

suggested title:

Gavin Newsom is a shit (scientifically proven)

OK. Enough of an edit?

thank you!

i also like the ambiguity (if you don't carefully parse the parentheses) that it allegedly had that former title

To get back to "gotta hand it to him" mode, I think his recent statements have been good, regardless of whether they are motivated by sheer narcissism and ambition. The sad fact is he's showing more spine than the majority of prominent Democrats. It's nice to think they may learn something from this, but every day of silence leads me to believe they mostly support Trump's crime spree.

it's not looking good out there but if you're holding your breath for the democrats to grow a spine, i'm not sure what to tell you

"rest in peace" is traditional, though some find it overly christian

it's not looking good out there but if you're holding your breath for the democrats to grow a spine, i'm not sure what to tell you

― budo jeru

I'm not holding my breath, I'm marching and pushing.

Democratic strategists and most DC Dem senators and reps are still locked into the "immigration" does not poll well for us theory (despite the fact the the due process argument & the El Salvador stuff hurt Trump's poll numbers), but instead of speaking loudly about billionaire tax cuts, knocking people off of Obamacare, knocking people off of Medicaid, AND speaking up for immigrants and against ICE, they're just hiding out while Republicans share photos of the guy with the Mexican flag on the car and people throwing rocks. Dems and Biden and Newsom never spoke up sufficiently with moral, religious, due process or economic arguments for immigrants for years, and the mainstream media of course never did either.

I see them lead with billionaire tax cuts and Medicaid every time they make a statement.

The problem is that statements have basically zero power when you’re out of power. Democrats need to be on the front lines getting arrested or building bases of power outside the electoral sphere.

Statements also have zero impact when you’re in power (cf. Nancy Pelosi taking a knee for BLM) but you can theoretically back them up with legislation at least.

Maxine Waters sought to enter the federal building out there in LA and they said no, and she left. She and others did the same in DC in protests against Doge. They need to get arrested but do so in a way that separates themselves from J6 types, or folks burning cars off on other streets.

counterpoint: they should absolutely be setting fire to panopticonmobiles themselves

I had totally forgotten about Ruby Rippey-Tourk and that drama…

https://bsky.app/profile/goldengateblond.bsky.social/post/3lrhcu6slns2r "> https://bsky.app/profile/goldengateblond.bsky.social/post/3lrhcu6slns2r

Explaining Gavin to non-Californians

Link works even though formatting not great

This shithead just won't quit: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/07/gavin-newsom-rages-about-trans-kids-in-sports-how-democrats-hate-his-stance/

there are many ppl who would improve the world with one weird trick and he is one of them

can we just fast-forward to when this dickweed loses so we never have to hear about whatever rancid """"""zing""""" he gave drumpf on x dot com?

https://clickhole.com/laying-the-groundwork-by-tweeting-in-all-caps-like-trump-gavin-newsom-is-proving-hes-the-democrat-best-suited-to-be-a-writers-assistant-on-our-cartoon-president-i/

You can bet the entire Democratic party is taking note of the rave reviews Gov. Newsom’s Trump mimicry is drawing among their base. Democrats who were busy crafting policy proposals or coming up with a vision for our country’s future that could replace Trumpism are probably dropping their platforms and getting a preemptive start on their Our Cartoon President packets after seeing the engagement Gov. Newsom’s posts are getting. Like him or not, it’s difficult to argue that any liberal is better positioned for a low-level staff role on a theoretical Our Cartoon President reboot than Gavin Newsom

Ehh.. he's a blue-state lame duck fucking around, trying to raise his profile... I think some Dems are relieved that someone is doing something

fucking around trying to raise his profile, doing something, relief (l to r):

🤑😮‍💨🥴

I’d totally forgotten the incident that gave this thread its original title. Ruby Rippey-Tourk! What a name. Wonder what happened to her.

I don't think I can bring myself to vote for this guy if he is the Dem candidate in 2028. Newsom, Booker, Buttigeg is like voting for which vomit tastes best. No thank you.

grow up

No one is saying you can't vote for losers who don't believe in anything. In fact, I am almost certain you will have that opportunity.

grow up

― jaymc, Friday, August 22, 2025 1:06 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

nice

Politicians are almost universally disappointing and at this point I rarely think about who I'm voting for, only who I'm voting against. If I was American and JD Vance is on the ticket for 2028, I'd vote for whoever the fuck wasn't JD Vance.

lads, we need to pace ourselves here

maybe it'll calm y'alls nerves a bit to look at historically who the frontrunners were 2+ years out from the actual primaries

when someone decides the model of democracy in their country is broken and they are not going to vote for people they despise anymore in a fucked up duopoly, this is a symptom of immaturity and they need to grow up? Yeah keep drinking the kool aid, dickhead.

This question may be on its way to being a moot point

I don't think duopoly really works for the US. The major political parties are much further apart than they in most countries

though this is a relatively recent development arguably

I am lukewarm on Newsom as a politician and a potential presidential candidate, and I don't think his social media approach is The Way for Democrats for Win. But I think it might be an effective way to disrupt some of the media dynamics around Trump.

Brian Beutler:

Satirizing Trump in this way, by simply holding up a mirror, serves the express purpose of shaking people out of their desensitization. It works, and is working, on two levels: First, by demonstrating that Trump can be effectively mocked. Second by exposing the inconsistency or bad faith of everyone who’s given Trump a pass. Newsom is also holding a mirror up to establishment figures who only expect comity from Democrats, and to Republican propagandists—like Dana Perino—who pretend to be outraged, while simultaneously cheering Trump’s depravity.

The absurdity is the point, you might say. And it is absurd. But it’s also valuable. If there’s a problem with m̶y̶ Newsom’s innovation it’s that it comes late, and we need much more of it.

though this is a relatively recent development arguably

I don't think that's arguable really.

if we are concerned about all the attention Newsom is getting, it's probably worth asking why there aren't more Dems taking note and jumping into the fray as well

Yeah, I think most countries ebb and flow when it comes to politics, and what was the case yesterday may not be the case today. However in the case of today, I don't think there is another country with its major parties further apart. Today the US is the least like a duopoly not the most

xp Is it cringey? You bet. Is it getting a lot of attention and putting Republicans on the defensive? Also yes.

I did refer to it as a fucked-up duopoly. Two despicable, corrupt parties - one of them trying to go full fash with a senile lunatic at the helm. Still in a democracy (even a sham one) you can decide NOT to vote for people whose politics you despise, it's an option and doesn't mean that you are immature.

some of them would like to but don't have the chops, but most of them are basically post-Clinton center-right grifters who aren't especially bothered by Trump

I did refer to it as a fucked-up duopoly. Two despicable, corrupt parties - one of them trying to go full fash with a senile lunatic at the helm. Still in a democracy (even a sham one) you can decide NOT to vote for people whose politics you despise, it's an option and doesn't mean that you are immature.

I think it depends on the democracy, I don't think this is an option in Australia. But in the US it's an option not to vote yes, in fact its generally preferred not to

But duopoly is a strange choice of words, it presumably just refers to the number of of parties rather than them being the same

xp Is it cringey? You bet. Is it getting a lot of attention and putting Republicans on the defensive? Also yes.

― jaymc, Friday, August 22, 2025 10:51 AM (twenty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

How are Republicans on the defensive because of Newsom? How does this manifest exactly?

xp

yes, let's tediously digress over the use of the word "duopoly" here and expound about compulsory voting. Actually, no let's not bother because you are a fucking boring cunt at best.

One thing to consider is that Newsom was at one point considered unfit to national level politics because of his slimy past (grooming, rampant infidelity) but if there's anything that Trump has taught us is that shit doesn't really matter anymore.

it doesn't matter to people who have no morals which I think explains the vast majority of the Republican base, to Dem voters I think it absolutely does matter

my gut feeling, not based on any serious theory, is that no California politician can lead the Democratic Party to victory over MAGA on a national stage

yes, let's tediously digress over the use of the word "duopoly" here and expound about compulsory voting. Actually, no let's not bother because you are a fucking boring cunt at best.

― vodkaitamin effrtvescent (calzino), Friday, August 22, 2025 4:32 PM (forty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

my man

my gut feeling, not based on any serious theory, is that no California politician can lead the Democratic Party to victory over MAGA on a national stage

― c u (crüt), Friday, August 22, 2025 4:57 PM (twenty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i agree with this

I also agree with that, tbh.

I agree too, though I stopped making predictions when a Chicago senator named Barack Hussein Obama became nominee and president.

However in the case of today, I don't think there is another country with its major parties further apart.

The presidential candidate for the Democrats was campaigning on being endorsed by a republican war criminal, and vowing to include republicans in her cabinet. Federally elected Democrats have signed off on a plurality if not a majority of Trump’s appointments, and mayors and mayoral candidates keep pledging to collaborate with the administration. The Democratic leaders in both house and senate refuse to condemn the administration’s policies when pressed, referring at most to one of them having written an unread letter six months ago.

I think it depends on the democracy, I don't think this is an option in Australia.

RCV doesn’t mean that if you’ve numbered a racist, a gun nut, or a right-wing reverend #283 on your senate ballot that you’re voting *for* them. They were already on the ballot. It’s not a weighted ILM poll.

Plus you can stop anywhere after TWELVE as of the 2020s, you don’t have to fill the whole paper if you go below the line.

can Joanne Newsome's extremely wealthy (and no doubt corrupt as fuck) and reputationally untenable (and widely despised) cousin teach the US electorate to finally "grow up"?

pretty sure i'd rather have Joanne Newsome teasing a presidential run

Is there an act that named themselves Joanna Gruesome? I’d vote for them first.

Hell yeah, they went on to become ILM favourites, The Tubs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Gruesome

Looks like Gavin Newsom grew some.

when he announces that California is ceasing all tax payments to the U.S. Treasury, then I'll agree that he grew some

How does CA do that if it never has payments to the U.S. Treasury in it's possession?

new pynchon conspiracy theory plot sounds promising

A Californian can win, they just have to not suck. Unfortunately, California exclusively produces terrible Democrats so that will never happen.

From Nixon/Reagan onwards, I feel like CA has had outsized influence on the opposite party. It would be way easier for CA to produce a catchphrase-spouting grifter who splits the Republican base. For awhile I thought that would have been Schwarzenegger.

i don't think Harris lost because she was from California

run bill hader doing his californians sketch accent

Looks like Gavin Newsom grew some.

He is prepared to speak out on important matters, true.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ca-gov-gavin-newsom-completely-aligns

The California governor stated he was "completely aligned" with far-right, anti-LGBTQ+ influencer Charlie Kirk on transgender participation in sports. He also appeared to express agreement with restrictions on medical care for incarcerated transgender people and limits on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.

That was last month, his team figured out that sick burns and performative liberalism were a better lane than being the nu-Clinton.

Is he still doing his stupid podcast?

The new Andrew Cuomo

i will never forgive him for the french laundry thing

it's true that there are far better things to hate him for, and far better reasons never to vote for him. but i'll never vote for him because of the french laundry thing and all you libs can suck it

Looks like Gavin Newsom grew some.

All that was was a play on words - like Joanna Gruesome - I have no idea what the cunt is up to and couldn't give a fuck, he's your problem.

25 is too young for gender transition according to this absolute blowhard. fuck him

yea honestly just as I always hated (though I voted for) Copmala, I will always hate this fucker as a former San Francisco Bay Area resident. unlike Copmala tho, i won’t ever vote for him— he’s scum.

I maintain that "Would I vote for Gavin Newsom for president?" is a discussion you can have if you feel like it, "Should I vote for Gavin Newsom for president?" is never going to be a question in need of an answer.

Praying to the good lord every morning that Gav’s never the candidate

he's your problem.

hopefully not!

I have no idea what the cunt is up to and couldn't give a fuck,

This certainly seems the right thread to read repeatedly for the first thought to remain in stasis, and a productive one to post in repeatedly if the latter remains constant.

As a British observer with no skin in this game, I'm wondering who you folks do favour for the Democratic nomination. I don't like Newsom any more than you do, but if not him then who?

The ghost of FDR

There will probably be many people throwing their hat in the ring in the next couple years. I kind of wish Tim Walz would run (or stand as the British and Canadians have it) and tell the fucking consultants to go to hell.

it's walz's to lose for me. someone who can appeal to normie dems and take on a progressive mandate for change. pritzker could be good, too.

At the moment, yeah, Walz or Pritzker (or both! two fat middle-aged white guys! can't get more American than that!).

Walz has lost a lot of weight recently because: jogging.

i believe he can regain that weight to reconnect with the common man (i.e. me)

cosign Walz or Pritzker

Newsom is an opportunist

I don't have a favorite because my favorite is whoever can put together a multi-state coalition of support and win the primary, which is the best/only indicator we have of who might be able to actually win a general elections. I have no interest in nominating someone I like and respect if they can't deliver in November. Politics is a competitive enterprise, you need someone who can win. But I realize I prioritize personally liking a candidate less than a lot of people.

I don't think Newsom is going to be the nominee, because I don't see any indication that he has the chops to do that. But that's why open primaries are valuable (and why, again, Biden unconscionably throttled Democrats' chances in '24 by not allowing one).

https://i.imgur.com/MbWWR02.jpeg

these guys are all too fucking old

I just need a pulse and a spine

these guys are all too fucking old

who you got that's young enough for you?

my worry around the Harris failure is that the party will get mired in fear of another female candidate ('they just can't win!'), while the GOP will happily nominate someone far worse than Thatcher and our first woman president will be Noem or someone awful like that

Pritzker and Walz are 60-65, give or take? As long as you’re not hitting the dementia cliff inside of 8 years, whatever. It’s not like 45 year old Drmocratic politicians have shockingly good politics in general.

lol your mom? Gimme a break, this is such a copout. Am I only aloud to complain if I find a replacement candidate I like? Am I supposed to just fix the gerontocracy by myself? Your post is like when people pushed back against BLM for protesting but not having specific written policy suggestions or some shit. But you obviously know a lot more than I do, since you’re older and more mature and even keeled. Sorry, old people should not be in charge of important stuff! Just my opinion!

Raise your standards.

sorry that was to Aimless

Am I only aloud to complain if I find a replacement candidate I like? Am I supposed to just fix the gerontocracy by myself?

No. Anyone can complain. I just wondered who out there appealed to you.

Raise your standards.

Step away. My standards are fine.

60 year olds get their own thread on ilx but they can't even be president??

Josh Shapiro is 52, so he must be better than Walz or Pritzker.

Oh wait, dude sucks

sub-question: at what point will ilx become a gerontocracy, if it hasn't happened already, and how will we deal with that?

I don’t care if Bernie runs again we need someone who doesn’t suck.

Josh Gottheimer’s only 50, guys we found our man!!!!

sub-question: at what point will ilx become a gerontocracy, if it hasn't happened already, and how will we deal with that?

― budo jeru, Monday, August 25, 2025 10:11 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

we explain in our wills that our children (or other next of kin/cool neighbors) must become poasters and inherit our usernames

m bison jr is only 12 rn but he has young messi levels of shitposting talent already

nice, perhaps you could test the waters and ask him how he feels the beat on "roll out"

thats old ppl music to him (ergo illegible) but he has a lot of positive opinions on tyler, the creator (where did these opinions come from is anyone's guess)

I don't think Pritzker is too old but he is too fucking rich

Pritzker is not too old and sometimes it takes a rich dude to FDR the place up a bit.

how many times

...do I have to try
and tell you
that I'm sorry
for all
the times I voted

I wish the real world would just stop hasslin me

Still a shit: https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/12/18/gavin-newsom-ronald-reagan-aids/

I do like cherry-picking Reagan quotes about immigration

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/newsom-billionaire-tax-california.html

set this aside so you can whip it out whenever the libs start talking about Gavin 2028; fucking snake!

If Gavin Newsom is the 2028 nominee, I will not vote for him and will not feel guilty about it in the slightest.

100% agree

I think after Harris's candidacy, there won't be any appetite to run another California Dem any time soon

one of the worst things in the world is to see some click baity headline paid for by newsom's pr team about one of his simpy """"zings""" on x dot com.

the other day it was "republicans are coming to california??? zomg they are going to crash grindr again!" wow gavin your finger is really on the pulse of the most repulsive walking gucci bags in the country.

really going after the homophobe vote

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/22/newsom-makes-knee-pads-for-ceos-selling-out-to-trump.html

yeah, I find that incredibly tacky and also not very funny

it's also really stupid I mean Newsom is notoriously friendly to the CEO/billionaire class and has made playing nice with Republicans his entire shtick

giving "rich divorced red flag uncle" vibes

unpleasant people who like making crass sexual jokes in public already have a party gavin

This from today was a true delight.

https://defector.com/gavin-newsom-has-nothing-to-offer?giftLink=7fe5164ff0a71e5d347b5457bde680c4

unpleasant people who like making crass sexual jokes in public already have a party gavin

He really is MAGA for centrists

feels like a good way to get 2% of the primary vote

he comes off like the Jeb Bush candidate for 2028, except more Gekko-ish/Bateman-esque

i take it you didn't hear what another horrible person had to say about him

“Governor Newsom, who strikes me as Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken, may be the only Californian who knows less about economics than Kamala Harris,” Bessent said in remarks during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

one of the worst things donald trump did was make conservatives believe they could be funny

also gavin newsom literally did an interview with ben shapiro recently, mask way off

he is infuriating and seems to lack the ability to gauge how stunts like that will be received by like, 85% of the dem base in california (let alone the rest of the country). Clueless.

it's like orders of magnitude worse than "kamala campaigned with liz cheney"

I understand we live in the most debased, cringe era where everyone has felt the need to play this game, but it would be nice to get a solidly likable politician who just wants to do the job and not be whatever the fuck this type is. Sometimes virtually everyone in politics seems like this type now so, good luck with that I suppose.

^^^

my congressman jim mcgovern meets that description most of the time, but at this point grandstanding and getting zings in is like half the job (the other half being forging soulsucking alliances for $$$, obv)

newsom's twitter zings (which were/are written by a young staffer) were marginally amusing for about one minute, it's now his entire personality and the complete cognitive dissonance between most of that and his toadying with Shapiro makes him look like a fucking idiot.

Still shittin': https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/02/gavin-newsom-says-dems-need-to-be-more-culturally-normal-stop-talking-about-pronouns/

You know who's talking about pronouns? Conservatives.

All we do is furnish ours and ask to be referred to by them. Conservatives constantly use "pronouns in bio, opinion invalid" as a zing and tell tall tales of abuse hurled towards people who accidentally misgendered someone, which was really someone gently correcting them and them flying off the handle screaming like a wounded dingo on a coke binge.

So fuck off Gavin

Sadly, blue MAGA loves this line and its not subtle bigotry

Gavin's going to campaign entirely on Facebook's Most Shared Posts Of 2022

He's a full-on anti-queer bigot btw; in case you didn't click through:

“From the prism of purely politics, there’s no doubt that the Democratic party needs to be – dare I say – more culturally normal,” he said. “I believe that, less prone to spending disproportionate amounts of time on pronouns, identity politics, more focused on tabletop issues, things that really matter, the stacking of stress in terms of the electricity bills and childcare costs and health care and obviously housing costs and how easily we get trapped in that, how I’ve fallen prey to that. I mean here I was way out front on marriage equality.”

I was prematurely in favour of equality should be a career-ending statement from a Democrat ffs

He was probably a "but let's call em civil unions" guy until the 11th hour

more fuel for my belief that powerful people live in little made up worlds inside their head where Harris and Walz apparently spent the entire 2024 campaign telling people their pronouns

the nothing matters candidate. "i wish i was republican but i don't have enough conviction". too dumb and bloodless to pull a j.d. vance.

NYT article from Feb. 2004:

For Mr. Newsom, a millionaire businessman who was branded the conservative candidate in mayoral election last fall -- an opponent's campaign posters tried to link Mr. Newsom with President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- this was a road no one had imagined.

''Most politicians don't get away with doing the right thing at a time when society is not necessarily unanimously ready for that,'' Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said in an interview.

...

But less than two weeks after his inauguration on Jan. 8, Mr. Newsom found himself sidetracked by what quickly became the defining issue of his career so far. It began with an invitation from Representative Nancy Pelosi, a longtime family friend who represents the San Francisco region, to attend President Bush's State of the Union address.

It was there, sitting in Washington, that Mr. Newsom heard Mr. Bush speak against same-sex marriages.

''I was there and I just was scratching my head, saying this was not the world that I grew up aspiring to live in, that he was talking about,'' Mr. Newsom said. ''I just found some of the words quite divisive.''

When Mr. Newsom returned to San Francisco, he said, he read the court decisions that authorized gay marriage in Massachusetts, as well as the United States Supreme Court ruling last year on sodomy. As he mulled those precedents and Mr. Bush's comments, he said, he became convinced that he had a moral obligation to open the doors to same-sex marriages.

So, back then, he did the morally correct thing even though society may not have ready for it. And now he thinks he was wrong to do so? (I do wonder how much his decision in 2004 had to do with signaling to San Franciscans that he was a trustworthy progressive, but I'll leave that to those more familiar with SF politics to assess.)

I agree with you. Personally, being in SF at the time (and ever since), I very much think that Newsom's 2004 decision was entirely about local politics. I think that indeed it unified the city behind him after a very divisive election. Because it was so easy to do this in SF, I didn't think it was an especially courageous stand.

I didn't like him then and I don't like him now. I hope he's not the Dem candidate.

I do wish Joanna Newsom stuff was on the streaming services, tho.

Probably thinks he could have been President by now if he’d been more of a reactionary.

Xp - the election the article refers to was not “The Election” where he first became mayor. That was the real fractious one … the one to succeed Willie Brown… Newsom had one of the most “centrist neo-liberal” supervisor districts. His opponent was one of the most leftist supervisors… Matt Gonzales, who had art openings in his office and was basically the cool candidate. Like, he was the Gen X Zohran M. I didn’t know anyone who was not a Matt Gonzales supporter.

The 2023 election just cemented Newsom’s power, and was more of a trial balloon for statewide office. That’s how I saw it at the time …

back then, he did the morally correct thing

I think it's politically a no-brainer to support all marriages as mayor of SF, but now my hunch is that the DNC has told him he's been selected and are now feeding him messaging to appeal to the national campaign. Because seriously, what bay area native thinks the democratic party is too radically left? I strongly doubt he believes this, but I also doubt he has much in the way of personal conviction, cause he sucks.

newsom will just say and do anything he things will give him an edge. that is all. sometimes in the past that's been beneficial to society. not now.

I won't vote Democratic if he is the candidate. Fuck this dude to eternity.

It's just interesting.

the DNC has told him he's been selected and are now feeding him messaging to appeal to the national campaign

no need to rope in the DNC for this. he's already decided which lane he wants to occupy for the race and is positioning himself to fill it before someone else does. he's also anticipating the 'ultra-radical California Democrat' label and thinks this kind of soft-center-right messaging will neutralize it. he's ass enough to find this strategy all on his own.

I won't vote Democratic if he is the candidate. Fuck this dude to eternity.

haha yeah, many of us in California have been saying the same for years... but against the alternative?

I mean, don't get me wrong: I'm definitely not voting for his ass this time. Not after this and his comments about transgender issues.

me to Newsom: you want it to be one way, but it's the other way

The amount of negative attention this guy gets always makes me wonder who all the people are we think will be enthusiastically voting for him in the primary.

Nobody who is a “front runner” this far out ends up being the candidate. How soon we forget Giulianimania in 2014

President Santorum

on everything but rollerskates!

haha yeah, many of us in California have been saying the same for years... but against the alternative?

― beard papa, Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:09 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

"Against the Alternative" is all the Democrats have run on for years. It's not really an effective platform anymore in the absence of believing in something that would make people's lives better.

on everything but rollerskates!

santorum on rollerskates would negatively affect performance

he's only the "frontrunner" in that he's a recognizable name and one of the only people who we know is definitely running, there's a long long history of these sorts of people faceplanting

They’re not really gonna run another California moderate, are they? Although this is the DNC I’m talking about!

Yeah, I'm not freaking out about Newsom yet. I'm gonna make it through 2026 if it kills me!

Newsom hasn’t even officially declared yet

haha yeah, many of us in California have been saying the same for years... but against the alternative?

― beard papa, Tuesday, February 24, 2026 5:09 PM (yesterday)

i mean, look, as much of a "radical leftist" as i supposedly am i really do believe in compromise, i really am willing to compromise my values for... not for the common good, but for _the team_. i compromised my values and voted for harris, who was a pro-genocide candidate. i mean it's a fucking awful thing that i did, voting for a pro-genocide candidate, and i feel awful about it. i did this entirely because some neoliberal people i knew and respected made it clear that in their eyes, i had a moral obligation to do so, that if i didn't do that, they would hold me personally accountable for it.

i didn't agree with them then and i don't agree with them now, but like i say, i respected them. i did it because i know that under the electoral college system we have, the one so fiercely defended by those same neoliberals, my individual vote doesn't matter. i knew and know that i have ways to oppose genocide other than my vote, that living my values is far more effective and meaningful than ticking a box every four years. i did it, ultimately, out of the hope that if i were to do something that was important to them, there would be reciprocity. that they would listen to and respect me when i talked about the things that are important to me.

well, i guess it's the same thing for me today. the people who, in 2024, were so insistent that i vote for harris, who said they'd hold me personally accountable if i didn't and trump got elected... well, i _did_, and trump _still_ got elected, and they _still_ hold me personally responsible for that. really their whole insistence that i vote for their candidate on _moral grounds_ is totally unjustified. and i kind of think about this when i read about newsom saying in 2004 that he had a "moral obligation" to support gay marriage. i don't think newsom understands morality in the same way that i do. i think that for him, "morality" is whatever will gain him acclaim and power. i think that there's no real difference between a "moral obligation" and a "political obligation", to him. i think that a lot of powerful people have that approach to morality.

so i'm not saying that, under certain circumstances, i _wouldn't_ vote for newsom. he's not the sort of man i could ever truly _support_, though, because of his approach to morality. someone like that, i would have to constantly be working closely with _the team_ to make sure that he felt what he calls a "moral obligation" to, uh, tolerate my existence. if the people i respect as being part of what i consider "my team", the team i'm on - the people who show up to the no kings rallies, the people who _don't_ see "politics" as being about casting a vote every four years and then talking shit endlessly on social media about other people - if those people make it clear to me that it is important to them to vote for newsom, i will vote for newsom. it's not about their ass cashing the checks their mouth writes. someone who advocates for newsom is writing a bad check. if someone writes me a bad check for a pack of cigarettes every four years, i'll let it go if they pay for their groceries in cash every week.

newsom might actually win. he's a mediocre cisgender white man, and the american electoral system has a marked bias towards mediocre cisgender white men. they used to call them "doughfaces" in the 1850s, and i think it's a great term and i try to use it nowadays. newsom is a doughface. i'd like america to be better. i'd like america to be a country that stops electing schmucks like him. that's not up to me.

he's got this cousin who seems pretty cool, though, even though i don't know her personally or anything. i guess that's something.

Nothing to add to that other than to say that for whatever reason I've been assuming for a while that Kate was in the U.K. Ah well, things you were shockingly old...

"Doughface" applied to Northern Dems who didn't oppose slavery fwiw

at this point i think newsom will get pretty far in the race but i don't think he's gonna be the nom. sorta feel like pete has a better chance. very likely i'm off base though even oracles such as myself are wrong sometimes (kidding).

not trying to argue, but honestly feel like being a straight centrist lizard person is less of a liability to the american public than being gay.

like even with Heated Rivalry and etc and etc, this remains a deeply homophobic country.

that Pete is also a centrist lizard person doesn’t help him of course.

nothing but scorn for Gav and Pete imho

Gonna be a white guy governor or Senator from a red or purple state

gavin should propose medicare / social security for all

lol why on earth would he do that

Medicare For All who've started small consulting businesses in middle to low income zip codes employing at least 15 workers, premiums returned as tax credits after four years

medicare for all

social security for all

Mediocre for all

no more US bankruptcies due to medical bills

They’re not really gonna run another California moderate, are they?

I hope not. But to be fair, Harris' voting record in the Senate was pretty darn liberal (for that chamber)... her VP role was where she found her centrist bona fides

not trying to argue, but honestly feel like being a straight centrist lizard person is less of a liability to the american public than being gay.

― a tv star not a dirty computer man (the table is the table), Wednesday, February 25, 2026 7:56 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

no that's a good point, i agree.

no fucking chance I'll vote for anyone who won't call Gaza a Genocide.

i feel like the chances of me voting for the democratic nominee for president are extremely small. i didn't vote for kamala, the party has somehow been even more disappointing since then, and the slate of candidates really seems like the last gasp of the schumer/pelosi era that i personally can't have any further connection to

something i think about all the time is how right dr. morbius was about democrats and voting for them in presidential elections

Harris is a better candidate than Newsom

idk that's kinda like saying that eating a steaming pile of shit is better than drinking diarrhea

well it is

to be less flippant -- the quality of the candidate is sort of irrelevant because the actual issue is the functioning of the party. i don't really care about the leaves i'm trying to uproot the tree and feed it into a wood chipper

Senator Harris appeared to read the room on what Democrats under the age of 55 wanted, 2020 candidate Harris started to stray from the righteous path and VP Harris/2024 candidate Harris lost the plot completely.

something i think about all the time is how right dr. morbius was about democrats and voting for them in presidential elections

― slob wizard (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:39 PM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

absolutely.

Lefty Harris always felt like a pose.

It absolutely was but trusting anyone outside of Omar, Tlaib and pre-2023 Bernie to do good things is pointless. Democrats who are scared enough for their jobs to accommodate the non-donor/media/security class can at least be bargained with and do some useful things.

I thought with most of us being on the elderly side that we’ve been around this too many times to think we know what to expect two years out from the presidential election. i’m gonna wait for 2028 and *then* despair

In the last 40 years how many times has the actual candidate been better than the two years out headliners? Once, 2008?

yes but i will worry about it then

I'm sorry but I would happily & eagerly vote for a barnacle over vance or whoever

If for whatever reason Newsom is the nominee, I will likely vote for him, but probably not happily/eagerly.. that's unfortunately just the binary situation we're in

yay! genocide 4 prez!

which is what we currently have

During the nomination process, the voters should be able to exert force on candidates... the partisan electorate can dictate what they prefer, and the candidate can either respond or not, but that's how it works. It does seem that the DNC is probably setting up Newsome as their chosen boy, but it doesn't always work out the way they hope

You live in California, you don't have to vote for evil to stop other evil.

Just the concept of a nomination process seems inconvenient to the DNC, and they got away with bypassing it last time. I completely agree Gavin is the chosen boy, and that the dems are in a situation where their preference runs against, you know, a nomination process altogether. can't support that nonsense, but I don't live in a swing state. I've decided from here on out to vote my conscious, not for strategy.

Oh, I hope we have a better nominee than that slimy fucker! But I would have to see which way the wind is blowing to vote for a third party in the general. I'm not very principled in that way

Hilary was supposed to be the chosen one in 2008 and we got a surprise….

Mike Gravel

Yeah, no way I am voting for Newsom, Pete, or Harris. If AOC runs and ends up being the candidate, I would say sure. But none of those other people.

AOC wont be the nominee. And none of them are bad. And you are just announcing ahead of time that you are ok with another Republican President

The idea that I could in any way improve the situation in Gaza through choosing not to cast a vote for a Democratic nominee who failed to call the war in Gaza a genocide seems far fetched. I don't think the people of Gaza would be impressed by it, either. They probably yearn for some more concrete assistance than that.

otoh, the chance that conditions would be marginally better for more of the ordinary people in the world if the weak-kneed Democratic nominee won instead of the Republican fascist nominee seems worthwhile enough that I am willing to do what I can to make it happen. This is not a "yay or boo for genocide" binary choice.

We all will do as our best judgment dictates.

Oh, I hope we have a better nominee than that slimy fucker! But I would have to see which way the wind is blowing to vote for a third party in the general. I'm not very principled in that way

― Andy the Grasshopper, Wednesday, February 25, 2026 4:06 PM (one hour ago)

i kind of feel, personally, like the system we have now makes principle _at the ballot box_ impossible, absurd, meaningless. the whole situation, to me, comes down to how _few_ of us have a very real voice, that most of us lack the ability, both politically _and_ collectively, to advocate for ourselves effectively. what's more dispiriting to me is knowing that this state of affairs isn't actually anomalous! america was designed on anti-populist principles, modeled on the roman "republic" (which in practice was much more of an oligarchy).

when i talk go my mom, my aunts, my uncles, they're out there resisting, and they're also saying "write your representatives, it matters, it counts, it's important". this was the america they were born into, this was the america they lived, this was the america they taught _me_ about. and i seldom engage with politics directly anymore. it's too _depressing_. i've learned a lot of helplessness, and i'm trying to unlearn it, and i'm not going to unlearn it by focusing on the most perverse and ineffectual systems in america, the ones that are failing us _and_ failing themselves.

i clicked on this thread i guess because i was bored and because it had bumps, and i wanted to see what was up. nothing. same shit, different day. maybe a lot of people do believe in america. i believe in evidence. the evidence is that things are bad, they're getting worse, and nobody in power seems to want to take responsibility for making things better. they make excuses, they make demands, they blame us. there's that guy in new york, i have trouble with his name, mamdani. mamdani. i'm gonna need to learn that. there's a lot to be said for america, a lot of good in it, but right now "america" is something i'm trying to survive. and newsom, well, he's part of that same america, the america that can't do anything for me but which _can_ make my life substantially worse in new and fascinating ways.

i'm not a doomer. i have a lot of hope. i believe that working together, we can make this a better place to live. whether i vote for him or not, i don't see newsom being part of that "we", any more than i saw clinton or biden as being part of that "we". god knows i'm gullible - i voted for obama _twice_ - but my credulity does have its limits.

AOC wont be the nominee. And none of them are bad. And you are just announcing ahead of time that you are ok with another Republican President

― Dan S, Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:05 PM (two minutes ago)

look

i try my best to patient and kind and give measured, reasoned response

i am going to make an exception:

ohhh, FUCK OFF!

now i am going to finish my post about william t. vollmann and probably play a video game or something. have a great evening y'all.

AOC wont be the nominee. And none of them are bad. And you are just announcing ahead of time that you are ok with another Republican President

― Dan S, Wednesday, February 25, 2026 9:05 PM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Ask the people of Gaza what the difference is between these Dems and another Republican President. Well, ask the people that aren't already blown to pieces.

if you vote for an explicitly pro-Israel candidate for president you are ok with what is happening in Gaza, plain and simple.

xp I want her to be president, but it's not going to happen in 2028 (when she will be 38-39), it will be some time after that, maybe in 2032 or 2036 when she is in her forties, or later

i'm not ok with what's happening in america

I don't know why people are getting so worked up about Newsom. He is not the establishment choice for Democratic presidential nominee in 2028. He's someone who goes on TV a lot and tries to present himself as a national political figure, but as far as I can tell the only reason the Democratic Party pays any attention to him at all is that he's the governor of California, which is a position of great power (far greater relative power, frankly, than the president of the US). If I had to guess, I would say the Democratic Party as an institution is interested in, in order (their logic in parentheses):

- Kamala Harris (she was the vice president!)
- Rahm Emanuel (he worked for Obama!)
- Pete Buttigeig (he worked for Biden, and he's so well-spoken - shit, they let him appear on Fox and don't even tar and feather him!)

I think all three of those are terrible choices, ftr; they only show how bankrupt and stupid the Democratic Party as an institution is. Fortunately, the party is also hideously disorganized and self-destructive, so there's always room for someone actually good and talented to show up and win despite the party's best efforts to stop them. I am still holding out hope that JB Pritzker - a competent governor who talks like a human being - will run, and win.

for god’s sake harris is not going to be the candidate.

The Democratic establishment is interested in Gavin because he is currently the highest polling potential candidate, and that’s the kind of person you want to have in your pocket.

looking forward to rahm emanuel polling at 0% in every democratic primary poll

guys it’s over my DNC sources say it’s Mondale in ‘88

Wait until the Rahmentum kicks in

if you vote for an explicitly pro-Israel candidate for president you are ok with what is happening in Gaza, plain and simple.

That certainly is simple. Not so sure about plain, though. It's a big world with a lot of stuff happening all the time.

Or it just doesn’t matter that much to you? I mean, you’d have to be a ghoul for it not to matter to you, right?

Nothing matters, and what if it did?

it's more a matter of how much my vote as a single vote in a presidential election matters to the fate of people in Gaza, as opposed to how much it might matter to the fate of, for example, food stamp recipients in the USA or refugees from Sudan, or children who might catch polio or measles. there's a lot potentially riding on who is president and Gaza is only one place where death is on the line. picking one and ignoring the rest seems ghoulish to me.

You’re right, I forgot about the 70000 deaths from reduced Snap benefits.

I guess you don't care about SNAP beneficiaries. Hmmm. Seems damn callous of you imo, but who am I to judge your morality in that regard. They need food to live, but you do you.

Death, taxes, tedious Democratic scolds

Who doesn't love pretending* they've never heard of the Electoral College in order to shame someone for having some measure of antipathy to openly pro-genocide politicians?

*hopefully

Both Sidesin’ the Genocide: American Politics March 2026

The people of Gaza are the most important people who have ever lived, in the entire history of humanity. That the rest of you swine can't recognize that, and adjust all your thoughts and behaviors accordingly, reflects very poorly on you.

Holy shit, you’re really writing this shit down huh

What's happening in Gaza is hideous, a war crime, a tragedy. There are terrible things going on around the globe at all times, and to fixate on one faraway tragedy to the extent that it prevents (or absolves) you from doing anything about the problems in your own country is... a choice.

Will you say Genocide or no

'your concerns and experiences are not real concerns or experiences' - the winning message of 2016 and 2024

Will you say Genocide or no

I don't know how closely you pay attention, but there has no significant disagreement on this entire site, both during the 2024 election and since that Israel's actions in Gaza easily meet the definition of genocide. Experts in the history of genocide and the international laws against genocide also agrre on this. It is most certainly a genocide and the genocide continues to this day, via Israel purposely withholding the necessities of life from the people of Gaza.

Go ahead and poll it if you want. You'll see.

but there has no significant disagreement on this entire site, both during the 2024 election and since that Israel's actions in Gaza easily meet the definition of genocide

You should inform the guy who just went out of his way to not say genocide.

he also insisted anyone here who thought Kamala wouldn’t win was a crybaby doomer idiot, then announced he was leaving the country forever immediately after she didn’t

just as a reminder of other confident dismissals he’s made to fellow posters itts

one faraway tragedy

Directly funded by the United States of America, stop pretending this is some far off conflict that doesn't concern you.

"one faraway tragedy"

is this the woke imperialism Dems take on Gaza? "It's a tragedy that we repeatedly could not prevent ourselves from enabling ... again and again and again..."

AOC wont be the nominee. And none of them are bad. And you are just announcing ahead of time that you are ok with another Republican President

Gavin Newsom is vocally anti-trans.

He has personally destroyed the possessions of unhoused constituents, as a photo op that he personally organised.

This week he denounced himself for supporting gay marriage, and specifically said that it hadn’t been on principle, but because he is susceptible to the thoughts of those around him.

Six of the first seven guests on his podcast were - in order starting from the first - Charlie Kirk, Michael Savage, Steve Bannon, Ezra Klein, Anthony Scaramucci and Rahm Emanuel.
The run from episode 13 was Frank Luntz, Amy Klobuchar, Newt Gingrich, Newt Gingrich again, “Dr. Phil,” Dr. Phil again, Lev Parnas’ tiktok-influencer pro-genocide-in-Gaza son, and George Bush’s director of policy planning who is now a Peter Thiel-funded member of The Christmas Adventurers Club a secret geopolitical think-tank.

Are you saying that you still think all of these would be good actions if a Republican governor was doing them? If not, why do you think they indicate that Newsom is good?

I knew Aaron Parnas in 2021 when he worked with Miami-Dade Dems. To watch him become this influencer just for looking into the camera and reading the day's headlines sure is something.

I have given some leeway to Dan S, at times, because I didn’t want to disrespect an elder gay man who saw so many of his fellow gay men die at the hands of a callous and cruel government.

But yeah, fuck off Dan.

Is the S for Savage?

“one faraway tragedy” really takes it for me, v tired of reading the takes of a poster so misanthropic and cruelly stupid

stupidly cruel? idk i'm tired. but it's because i am encountering all these tiresome posts

So does Newsom have the nomination yet, I'm assuming yes based on the activity itt

hahaha people are melting down over something that will never happen

get some hobbies!

"some faraway tragedy" dude go fuck yourself

ehh, imo at this point in time policing this kind of posting is equally painfully familiar, no offence yall

"Gavin Newsom" is just a proxy for debates over the Dems' political future — which is an urgent question, I think we can all actually agree? — and I don't foresee an end to this exchange happening soon:

Side 1: the soft/centre right is less evil than the hard/far right, so I'll vote for the former to block the latter without question
Side 2: constantly telling everyone this and tsking at people who declare the won't support a D party that moves even further rightward helps secure support for the soft/centre right and pushes the party in that direction

ok yeah I'm biased for side 2, sorry lol, but ftr I do understand side 1's logic, it's just totally demotivating personally

Our "melt down" is not over him being the nominee but rather his tone-deaf comments about "normalcy" at the time when Kansas is pulling its shit. I simply revive the thread whenever I read about him doing something shitty.

Trying to come up with a list of establishment pick Presidential candidates/potential candidates who flamed out for whatever reason:

1968 George Romney
1972 Teddy Kennedy, Edmund Muskie
1976 "Scoop" Jackson
1988 Gary Hart
1992 Mario Cuomo
1996 Colin Powell
2008 Hillary Clinton
2016 Jeb Bush
2024 Ron DeSantis(?)

Our "melt down" is not over him being the nominee but rather his tone-deaf comments about "normalcy" at the time when Kansas is pulling its shit. I simply revive the thread whenever I read about him doing something shitty.

― cryptosicko, Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:42 AM (one minute ago)

otm. it's undeniably worth tracking the fact that one of the party's most prominent faces/voices is a transphobic and increasingly homophobic bigot (+ see sic's post upthread) — seems like a big deal regardless of the primary. hell it'd be worth "freaking out" about even if he was "just" governor of CA

if we're cursed to live in a binary-choice two-party system where you're constantly being asked to compromise your values to block the worse option, then I would prefer if the Gavin Newsoms were all in the greater evil party

fwiw I think the far more productive thing to do with Newsom than arguing about whether or not to vote for him if he's the candidate is to MAKE SURE HE'S NOT THE CANDIDATE. Find someone else to support, support them any way you can, whether that's phone banking or making small-dollar contributions or just talking about them over and over to anyone who will listen. This is not a spectator sport where we sit around and wait to see who gets handed to us as the nominee. Right now there IS no nominee, there are a bunch of people who could be. If you want to make holding Israel accountable a litmus test for a nominee — an important position imo, along with e.g. abolishing ICE — then channel that into making it so. Look at the polls, Democratic voters are very much ready to support a non-AIPAC nominee and a nominee who will abolish ICE, there's plenty of open space to nominate someone with those positions.

Newsom sucks, we all know it, he's been "allegedly a shit" on ILX for 19 years.

idk I feel like the blue-no-matter-who crowd needs to hear loud opposition to this right off the bat

if we're cursed to live in a binary-choice two-party system where you're constantly being asked to compromise your values to block the worse option, then I would prefer if the Gavin Newsoms were all in the greater evil party

Seriously. So many of these guys would absolutely spiral if you asked them straight out, "Why are you a member of the Democratic Party? Why aren't you a Republican?"

fwiw I think the far more productive thing to do with Newsom than arguing about whether or not to vote for him if he's the candidate is to MAKE SURE HE'S NOT THE CANDIDATE. Find someone else to support, support them any way you can, whether that's phone banking or making small-dollar contributions or just talking about them over and over to anyone who will listen. This is not a spectator sport where we sit around and wait to see who gets handed to us as the nominee. Right now there IS no nominee, there are a bunch of people who could be. If you want to make holding Israel accountable a litmus test for a nominee — an important position imo, along with e.g. abolishing ICE — then channel that into making it so. Look at the polls, Democratic voters are very much ready to support a non-AIPAC nominee and a nominee who will abolish ICE, there's plenty of open space to nominate someone with those positions.

See also: Graham Platner. You hate the guy? Totally understandable. Who are you for?*

*the collective "you," not any specific poster

What’s happened/ happening in the West Bank and Gaza is something that the white identitarian right (75%+ of GOP voters now, I’d guess) pretty clearly wants to do here. And the Epstein elite have apparently decided that this is a better option for them and their interests than democratic socialism/ Nordic model, etc. The Democratic Party wants to paper over the contradictions as much as possible (allows our betters more time to loot!), but not a single person named on any list of potential 2028 nominees is going to stop this.

tipsy, honestly your “aw shucks we just need to advocate for the candidates we want” spiel is as tiresome as my leftist bromides. you seem to buy into the delusion that we have any choice in these matters, when in reality, these choices have often been made for us. see the last three Dem candidates for president as evidence.

blaming people for not enthusiastically participating in a so-called democracy where it has been demonstrably proven, again and again, that their votes don’t count for much, that their will doesn’t count for much, is similar to something that rhymes with asslighting.

rather than candidates, i think it’s better to advocate for issues and see what potential candidates do in response. Newsom’s transphobia and homophobia are disqualifying. Any cozying up to ICE? disqualifying. unlimited blank checks for a fascist genocidal religious regime? disqualifying.

rather than candidates, i think it’s better to advocate for issues and see what potential candidates do in response. Newsom’s transphobia and homophobia are disqualifying. Any cozying up to ICE? disqualifying. unlimited blank checks for a fascist genocidal religious regime? disqualifying.

OTM

you seem to buy into the delusion that we have any choice in these matters, when in reality, these choices have often been made for us. see the last three Dem candidates for president as evidence.

let's ignore Harris, which was obviously unusual. Clinton and Biden earned the nomination by winning the most delegates in the primaries. were some people discouraged from running in 2016 to pave the way for Clinton? sure. did Klobuchar and Buttigieg strategically drop out before Super Tuesday to pave the way for Biden? sure. but in both cases, Sanders could have won the nomination if more people had voted for him. I suspect he didn't win in 2016 because the Democratic base wasn't ready for someone with his politics, and I suspect he didn't win in 2020 because the base, while they may have been more amenable to him than before, was too obsessed with electability and thought other people wouldn't vote for him. I will grant that the primary process is anti-democratic because it makes voters in some states more influential than voters in others. but it was an open primary.

i guess what i am getting at, in this sense, is that i think that the field that is currently being floated around this far out will actually be the field come late 2027/early 2028, with some additions, hopefully. but in the meantime we need to nail potential candidates down on issues, and make it known that certain stances are non/ starters

People like Newsom succeed with Dems because of tribalism. There are a substantial amount of blue voters who don't care as deeply about policies as they pretend to and for whom Ds are interchangeable with like being a Detroit Lions fan.

So that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend is a winning strategy" plus they enjoy his fratty memes and don't really care that he's selling out marginalized people.

But these are also the voters who weren't heavily invested pre-Trump and won't be post-Trump

i am 100% a Bernie truther, he was absolutely kneecapped by the Dem establishment and the media. to believe otherwise seems insane to me, to be frank.

Xpost That being said...idk that this bloc is large enough to nudge him. ICE really snapped a lot of people who didn't previously have deep investment to attention

It just seems like there's plenty of time to start rallying around decent candidates rather than wasting a lot of energy acting like the worst candidates are inevitable.

i am 100% a Bernie truther, he was absolutely kneecapped by the Dem establishment and the media. to believe otherwise seems insane to me, to be frank.

I don't entirely disagree. I also think that if he won more early primaries, he'd have been the nominee.

Well it’s not either/or — advocate for candidates AND issues. But here’s the thing, you have to make them count. That takes organizing on a mass scale, and leadership capable of doing it. (See also my longstanding observation about the lack of both on the American left.) Republicans didn’t start out as the ban-all-abortions embrace-all-guns party they are now, they were forced into those positions by decades-long campaigns by well-organized interest groups who built power in the party to the point where they were able to start enforcing them by taking out people in primaries and threatening the same to anyone who crossed them. In other words through the same electoral mechanisms you’re sneering at.

And par’me while I mount this here high horse, but here we are at the end of Black History Month and I’d just like to mention the people who fought and fucking died because they understood the importance of the ballot. If the ballot didn’t matter, nobody would have murdered them to keep it away from them.

xps to tables

While it's true that the Dem establishment didn't want Bernie as the nominee and took actions to prevent that, Bernie was also counting on being able to win with the Centrist vote fractured between 4 or 5 candidates. That doesn't tend to happen in primaries, where many candidates drop out after suffering losses and the race usually ending up as a one on one between the top two candidates. When it was just Bernie vs. Biden, Biden was more popular.

If we’re indulging in Bernie fantasies, mine is that he would have used the energy and momentum of his campaigns to build and nurture a powerful national network and movement that could by now be a truly substantial force. But he didn’t, for the same reason he didn’t win — he wasn’t the guy who could do it.

Which is not even that much of a criticism, it’s a tall order to do that. It would probably help eg to not be a stay-at-home septuagenarian/octogenarian from a tiny state.

Anyway the point is, if you don’t want Newsom as the nominee, beat him.

Anyway the point is, if you don’t want Newsom as the nominee, beat him.

― paper plans (tipsy mothra), Thursday, February 26, 2026 8:47 AM (fifty-seven seconds ago)

not unless he pays me

lol

haha

it's more a matter of how much my vote as a single vote in a presidential election matters to the fate of people in Gaza, as opposed to how much it might matter to the fate of, for example, food stamp recipients in the USA or refugees from Sudan, or children who might catch polio or measles. there's a lot potentially riding on who is president and Gaza is only one place where death is on the line. picking one and ignoring the rest seems ghoulish to me.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:07 PM (yesterday)

american electoral politics in 2026 _is_ ghoulish! honestly, i don't know a way to not be ghoulish to some extent when casting a vote. if my vote for president actually mattered, i'd be much more torn up about this than i am (and i am somewhat torn up about it, i just have more direct problems to deal with right now). i knowingly and consciously voted in 2024 for someone who supported genocide, and that was absolutely fucking ghoulish of me. i don't think i'm a _bad person_ for doing that, but at the same time, doing that was strongly against my personal values and against the values of the people i respect most. i do absolutely accept any consequences that come from my having done that.

really the problem i have with your framing - which i think is thoughtful and respectful, which is why i'm choosing to respond to it - is that there is... when you talk about "food stamp recipients in the USA", you're talking about me, you're talking about my friends. and look, i know you, i think you're coming at this from a good faith perspective. but the way you're framing it does tokenize us. this whole line of argument saying that people have an obligation to vote for someone like newsom or harris on _our_ behalf... we're not some abstract monolithic group. we're a diverse group of people. some of us will probably say "please vote for anybody but trump, i don't want to die". most of the marginalized people i know personally... and most of the people i know in-person are highly marginalized... aren't gonna say that. me and a lot of the people i know don't believe that voting for newsom is in our best interest. because to me, it's _not_ just about the people in gaza. it's because if someone will support a genocide, i don't _trust_ them to have our backs when we need it.

i am on board with majorairbro saying that they're going to vote their conscience. the only way out of this, i think, is for us to have values and to live our personal values, as best we can.

I also think that if he won more early primaries, he'd have been the nominee.

― jaymc, Thursday, February 26, 2026 11:28 AM (six minutes ago)

the primary system as its currently constructed disenfranchises most of the party's voter base, to pretend as if it's a representative system is to stroll happily onto a mouse trap to take a big bite of cheese

Do you mean because of the schedule or the superdelegates?

Either way, those can be changed too! I was reminded of that by the Jesse Jackson obits that noted his crucial role in changing to proportionate assignment of delegates, which Obama couldn’t have won without.

Nothing about the restrictive nature of American democracy is eternal and unchangeable — which we know, because it has been changed repeatedly to make it less restrictive, by people fighting much more daunting foes than the lame-ass DNC.

xp I agree with that, too. There should be a national primary.

What's happening in Gaza is hideous, a war crime, a tragedy. There are terrible things going on around the globe at all times, and to fixate on one faraway tragedy to the extent that it prevents (or absolves) you from doing anything about the problems in your own country is... a choice.

― placeholder username till I think of a better one (unperson), Thursday, February 26, 2026 12:11 AM (eleven hours ago)

i'm gonna put aside the ghoulish moral calculus being articulated here and just say that there's ample evidence all over the place that there is a deep connection between the forces driving the war on gaza and the forces causing "problems" in our own country. there's essentially no difference between being anti-zionist/pro-palestine/anti-war and being anti-oligarchy, which can be seen pretty explicitly in recent elections involving democratic politicians. so to say that gaza is a "faraway tragedy" is -- again, putting the morality of that statement aside -- just factually incorrect about its relationship to tentpole issues motivating the democratic voter base, and this was the biggest mistake made by the harris campaign. you can't be pro-israel and also attempt to take a populist stance as a democratic candidate. those two things do not compute because they are inextricably linked together. the voters are no longer buying that lie because the curtain that once shrouded the connections between the people driving america's relationship with israel and america's inequality has been fully pulled back. this is everywhere in the epstein files which are the biggest american news story in years. to not understand that being pro-gaza is a proxy for holding a broad set of progressive values should be disqualifying from discussing democratic politics, let alone to be involved in them

xp to tipsy: ah yes, how to force a party beholden to center-right banking industry, real estate industry, and any number of bad foreign actors to actually do right. you are living in a politics of the past— a majority of the Dems in congress will bend over backwards to avoid doing anything to upset the flow of money coming into their campaign coffers, and they have nothing to do with their constituents or their interests. if your response to that is “mount a decades long advocacy front” then you’ve lost me— it’s like seeing someone drowning and yelling “don’t worry, they’ll be draining this lake in a few months.”

as far as your second point, i am not sneering at voting or the violence of disenfranchisement, i am sneering at the idea that somehow the people have more than a modicum of actual say in who the candidate might be when there is a built-in institutional antipathy toward anyone to the left of a center-right fucking lizard like Newsom. in other words, it’s not the actual franchise i am sneering at, but more the illusion of choice when so many interests and institutions have already tipped the scales in certain candidates’ favor.

i think that part of what we disagree about, honestly, is that i don’t believe Democracy is for the people.

I'll admit that from my pov it took the steady accumulation of Epstein news for me to understand the size of this global oligarchy and they don't have to act like a well-organized cabal to quash any notion of progressive policy or governance. The sexual abuse of women is the prize the members enjoy and an example of how cheaply they regard human life.

and if you regard human life so cheaply how the hell can you care about, say, healthcare for all?

just factually incorrect about its relationship to tentpole issues motivating the democratic voter base, and this was the biggest mistake made by the harris campaign

Which was apparently the finding of the party postmortem that got buried by the DNC.

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza

The party establishment overall is basically out of touch with its own base, and often at odds with it. That’s a problem but also an opportunity. It’s roughly the position the GOP was in pre-Trump, and that disconnect and frustration was exactly what he exploited and rode to power on. Of course in that case what the base wanted was white supremacy and wimmen in the kitchen and license to bully queer kids. The left-Dem base wants different things. But the opportunity is the same.

it’s not the actual franchise i am sneering at, but more the illusion of choice when so many interests and institutions have already tipped the scales in certain candidates’ favor.

I think maybe the main thing we disagree about is that you seem to think those people and interests can’t be beaten, and I think they can. But only with sufficient organizing, energy, and leadership. And yes it could take decades, lots of things do.

The party establishment overall is basically out of touch with its own base, and often at odds with it. That’s a problem but also an opportunity.

Recent election results in NJ are a big example of this. The Democratic Party machine is getting body-slammed again and again by voters in districts they thought were safe and compliant.

That was also a case of AIPAC taking out one candidate in favor of another, only to end up benefiting a third.

Let's move this boring civics lesson to the Democratic Party Direction thread and leave this thread to it's intended purpose: shit-talking this lizard man until his dying day.

i think that part of what we disagree about, honestly, is that i don’t believe Democracy is for the people.

― a tv star not a dirty computer man (the table is the table), Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:24 AM (three hours ago)

agreed. the dnc being "lame-ass" and ineffectual is the point! they wouldn't have the power they do if they weren't supported by stronger, more effectual forces. the dnc patsies, and i'm not particularly interested in taking their place. what i'm interested in is living within a system that gives people rights and opportunities to live our values. i think that's a natural state of affairs, and that the current dystopia is an _unnatural_ state of affairs requiring a great expenditure of effort to reinforce. who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake?

I agree that Newsom is too slick, but I don't think he hates trans or gay folks at all.

He did the first gay marriages in California in 2004, and has been a reliable ally to us since then.

He said what he had to say to be electable in this political moment - that trans women in sports is an issue of fairness and still has to be settled in the public mind (I think they should be allowed). My SF and NY boomer friends have questioned Lia Thomas winning the NCAA title in 2022. I’ve been trying to bring them around, but it’s a big sticking point for a lot of people, and I don’t think the rest of the country is even close to being on board yet

He has signed laws that protect gender-affirming care from out-of-state subpoenas and has protected LGBTQ+ students from being outed at school. He has a trans godson

the dnc being "lame-ass" and ineffectual is the point! they wouldn't have the power they do if they weren't supported by stronger, more effectual forces.

Nah c’mon, who are you even talking about? Who’s so big and sinister that we can’t ever beat them? Look at the Epstein files, or all of European history, the people in charge are more likely to be vain nasty nitwits than Dr. Doom. There is no big giant sinister unbeatable Democratic Party Machine, there’s just a bunch of rich assholes who are often wrong and dumb, a bunch of party hacks and flacks trying to hold onto whatever position they’ve gotten to, pundits all vying to identify the right trends.

We would’ve saved the world but we couldn’t beat THOSE guys? I don’t buy it. I have spent time in this world, it’s way more muddled and porous than people seem to think.

It's true. Rich dumb assholes never get what they want.

You know what, I'll unbookmark this dumb thread instead. It's making me insane.

xp right, because nobody has ever been disappeared, or "committed suicide," or ended up spending life in prison for sticking their neck out in favor of people-centered leftist social programs

xp same, fuck Gavin Newsom forever as well as anyone who votes for him

yeah, I don't really want to talk about him... lates!

But only with sufficient organizing, energy, and leadership. And yes it could take decades, lots of things do.

if i have to read one more post like this i'm going to explode. thinking y'all have the right idea, i'm off this thread

lol I don't know how you guys think anything actually happens or has ever been accomplished by anyone.

right, because nobody has ever been disappeared, or "committed suicide," or ended up spending life in prison for sticking their neck out in favor of people-centered leftist social programs

Jesus Christ, of course it's hard, and of course it can be dangerous to speak out and show up. But literal millions of people in this country have done that before, it's the only way things get better! For fuck's sake. Nobody has to do more than they are able to or comfortable with, but sustained mass organized movements can and have and do make big differences. If you don't want to engage at that level that's fine, but don't say they don't or can't matter, that's absolutely not true. And goddamn, it's disrespectful to the people who have fought and sometimes yes died.

agrred, tipsy. this self-actuated sense of limitation is a measure of the success of right wing psy-ops on the people of the USA. the worst case scenario of the rich is when the lid blows off their carefully constructed courage & hope containment vessel

"You just got to want to it more" is not the strongest argument about overcoming structural impediments IMO.

so, which argument is the strongest?

Though it must be said Mao was out there giving it 110% and leaving it all on the field.

He said what he had to say to be electable in this political moment - that trans women in sports is an issue of fairness and still has to be settled in the public mind

Dan what the fuck are you talking about! California has term limits.

Though it must be said Mao was out there giving it 110% and leaving it all on the field.

lol

decades of sustained activism got the death penalty banned in Virginia

I'm glad that ILX does not have Reddit-style upvotes and downvotes, but I have often wished I could upvote all of tipsy's posts whenever we have this debate because he articulates my thoughts much better than I can.

Aw thx jaymc

And I don’t disagree much on policy or priorities with most of the people posting here. I’m just most interested in HOW things can get done.

Yeah it's good we don't have upvotes. The possibility that everyone is reading my posts going "god what a fucking idiot" is a good motivator not to chat too much shit for me.

lol otm

Oh I know everyone thinks I’m an idiot, that’s why I keep posting

table, as much as I am dismayed by some of your posts I think you are brilliant, please keep posting

thanks Dan S. i also hope you keep posting too, despite the fact that we disagree on many things.