Legally speaking, the Democratic party is a private organization and the controlling vote is the one that the delegates make at the convention.
I have my doubts about the sincerity of Newsom.
I have my doubts about the sincerity of all politicians. Are there any specific policy decisions he has made as Governor that you find grossly offensive? And if so how does that compare to the positive policy decisions he has made in his time?
Is he the most liberal option available to democrats at this time? No, probably not, but I think his record will play on the more left side of most issues compared to any other serious candidate currently.
If I could point to one thing, Iād say that it was his attending the French Laundry dinner for his lobbyist friend.
Yep, super shitty thing to do, but doesnt have a thing to do with his policies, which is really all I care about
I care about narratives and his decision-making framework. He seems like the kind of person who will move rightward on policy when heās responsible for more than just California if it benefits him.
Vetoed $35 insulin. Vetoed psilocybin. vetoed bill to prevent self-driving delivery vehicles (anti-union). Vetoed bill allowing striking workers to apply for unemployment.
5 Likes
How many of those passed unanimously?
Agreed on all of this. How about the second part of the exercise?
I kinda like him but heāll do anything if it benefits him. I think many/most of those things are good, but as @skydiver8 points out, plenty are not.
I hear this a lot. Did Biden ever do this? This feels like wishcasting.
There were some vague comments about being a bridge to the next generation or whatever, but I donāt remember anything he said that made it seem like he was ever ruling out a second term for himself.
Back in the day we thought of it as the rich kid safety school.
Kid sounds like he has got it figured out. Well done!
1 Like
I think only the insulin one, but the others had bipartisan support. My Republican assemblywoman voted for the mushroom bill.
He did not. Itās a mandela effect going on, I think.
there were calls for him to say that, but he never actually did.
I think this is right, I looked into it recently and this was the closest I found:
Of course, āsignals to aides he wonāt run againā probably means āwanted to indicate to on-the-fence voters that he wonāt run again without making a statement that could be used against him laterā
The primaries are pure theatre. Only tradition and expectation, not legal process, binds electors to voting for their candidate at the convention. The process would involve heavies at the DNC telling Biden that either he bows out gracefully and frees his electors, or else he is dragged out and shot on the convention floor.
This is not a likely scenario right now, but it could easily become so if Biden deteriorates further in the coming months. If Michelle Obama were actually willing to run, I think this would be a favorite even now, but I donāt believe she is, which would probably leave them having to put Kamala up. Not an appetizing prospect, but there exist scenarios where it becomes inevitable. Biden is an old man and his cognitive faculties are always a question mark, even if you think heās OK right now (which I donāt, frankly).
I like dunks on Nate as much as anyone, but is he actually wrong about this?
EDIT: Iām not saying (as Nate did) that he go on interviews with WSJ or Fox News, but not doing that Super Bowl interview was a mistake.
2 Likes
Telling Biden to display confidence and competence is easy mode advice. There will more opportunites available. He can make his own. Heās president! SOTU is coming up.
I think Nate still has useful things to say but he steps outside his area of expertise a lot. Which is fine, I guess, as long as you can stand the dunks.