I generally agree but if Newsom gets a retaliatory gerrymander passed, he’s no longer milquetoast, and more progressive challengers will have to have a CV that can compete with that. It’s something for progressives to think about over the next three years. How can they score big wins?
I would suggest a two part strategy: 1: emulate Zohran, communicate with voters, listen to their problems, propose & enact achievable solutions. 2: don’t throw trans people under the bus, veto progressive legislation, delight in punishing the homeless, or defaulting to ableist attacks like Newsom.
Gavin has a great skill at *sounding* progressive but then he does shit like that and shows you his true colors and after Hillary and Biden and Kamala can we please fucking not. Not again.
Again, actually gerrymandering out Republicans from California is an action, and a big one, so progressives who will want to challenge him will need records, not just rhetoric. That’s all I’m saying. I’m still Team Pritzker, but I’m pointing out why Newsom will be formidable.
Most progressives aren’t in a position where they can make a move that Big. I’m hopeful for Pritzker but I’m understandably cautious what with him being pro-israel in the past. I am dubious about there actually being elections next year. I feel like our side is not AT ALL prepared for that.
Well then the discussion about who we will or won’t vote for is totally moot.
I mean I would consider a big progressive move to say “this is our public plan of what to do if they do try and cancel the elections.” Something a little more emphatic than marches in pink hats and consultant-approved tut-tutting.
I’d like to see a similar plan for mass events against the troops in the streets right now as well. Opportunities abound. There will be more evil shit to oppose. Best thing anyone wanting to make a progressive name for themselves could do is be super active organizing against that.
The pink hats were a mass event.
A protest without an implicit threat of violence to follow, unless demands are met, is just state-sanctioned group aerobics. The pink hats happened & then Donald Trump nominated 3 Supreme Court justices & Roe went away. There was no “…or else” to the pink hat marches. We Need an “Or Else.”
Most Democrats are addicted to norms and do not like the boat to be rocked and I hope they get over that shit soon because strongly worded letters from Hakeem Jeffries and marching in whatever color hat you want doesn’t matter for shit without a “or else.”
I agree. But where are they?
I’m not trying to dunk or be snarky. Truly. I just think that providing an alternative goes both ways.
They tend to die mysteriously. More of them will rise up, it’s an organic human thing to do. The powers that be weren’t shy about killing them and they’re less so now, so we should listen for these voices and then amplify and protect them. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...
So is anyone doing that?
Like you’re looking down on what people are actually doing, but no progressives are actually doing the thing you say they need to do.
I will acknowledge Newsom’s willingness to fight when he thinks he can stick the knife in, and am glad he is doing so, but the fact that he has explicitly shown he is willing to cut off vulnerable people he sees as dead weight on him makes him a nonstarter to me.
This is referring to both his willingness to capitulate on trans rights, and his entire policy slate on homeless people. Also, the podcast thing where he was more chummy with fascists than Tim Walz was and is bad even if he’s suddenly remembered he actually hates all these guys now.
I agree. That’s all the more incentive to encourage other potential 2028 challengers to not let him steal the thunder.
Definitely agree with that. So far I think Pritzker and Van Hollen have really staked out good claims with this, Hochul has been surprisingly good since the election, and Walz started from a high point but feels like he has been quieter as time goes on (still quite good, and competitive imo.)
I know he’ll be too new to the senate but I like Roy Cooper.
Walz has the disadvantage of having to deal with a Republican state house.
Every candidate is going to need to come ready with examples of how they fought the hardest. The right platform just won’t be enough.
And it shouldn’t be. I honestly don’t have a ton of patience for policy discussions that aren’t premised on meaningfully reclaiming the republic. I include necessary coalition buying and such in that but not much more.
Megan Hunt is stupendous on trans rights but is balking at Democratic gerrymanders, meaning her correct policy positions simply don’t matter.
THIS to me is a great discussion that I just wish people were able to pull their emotions out of the equation & actually discuss respectfully! Is someone that doesn’t think CA should gerrymander further a non negotiable? What about someone like Pete or Gavin based on recent comments?
It honestly just goes back to the notion that the eventual nominee is going to have multiple opinions that don’t align perfectly with all of us. Prepare yourself for that now if you aren’t already. Defending Democracy and taking back this country is either important or it’s not 🤷♂️
“With Bill Kristol as my moral guide…”
And you know what? That sucks.
the 2028 primary should be a race to the bottom (top?) on screwing over republicans
If a candidate’s platform for 2026 and/or 2028 doesn’t include 1) Prosecution for crimes committed by government officials during 2025-28, 2) Expansion of the Supreme Court, and 3) Aggressive rebuilding of government functions, I’m gonna have to think long and hard about how much I can support them
This is why I don’t think the nominee is going to be someone like Beshear, Ossoff, Walz, etc. A happy warrior isn’t gonna cut it. The electorate is going to demand a lot of what you’re talking about here. It’s the primary reason (no pun intended) people are currently eyeing Newsom & Pritzker