Head to head poll between JD Vance and Newsom for 2028 is encouraging!

[senseandsensibility]

Yahoo News/ YouGov poll of US adults from Feb. 9-12: JD 43% Newsom 49%

Lol, JD. The American voters have seen you in action for a year and they don't like it. And for those of you who say JD's number is too high I agree. But in today's climate of extreme partisanship, six points is significant.

Look, Newsom may not be the candidate. But to me this shows that the non maga candidate has the advantage.

[SunSeeker]

1. Wow.

[senseandsensibility]

2. Have to admit that I was surprised

[PeaceWave]

31. Wow is right. Newsom/Moore would be the unbeatable dream ticket.

[Jack Valentino]

36. I haven't seen enough of Moore to make a judgement on him, but I do believe

that if the presidential nominee is white, it would be wise to have an African-American
on the ticket with them, hopefully a charismatic one!

(I was advocating for an AA running mate in 2016, it didn't happen and we lost.
In 2020, we had an AA running mate, and we WON.... 'nuff said!)

[mdbl]

3. That poll shows there's still something very wrong with this country.

[Brother Buzz]

4. Even as a stalking horse, Newsom can drive Vance's poll numbers down farther

And Newsom won’t have to try all that hard for the simple fact that Vance is widely disliked.

[Wanderlust988]

5. Newsom is a bit of lightning rod, so not surprising

He's a good man, but a man with a LOT of baggage. We love him for standing up to Trump, but he can be soooo easily attacked and dragged into the mud with all the negative shit around him.

[Dave says]

20. What negative sh*t?

Any Democratic candidate will be dragged through the mud, whether warranted or not. We need a candidate who can wash off and loudly sling it back. I think Newsom fits the bill. (There are others.)

[PeaceWave]

26. "A LOT of baggage?" Are you seriously bringing up that ridiculous shit from 21 years ago?

The man was in a bad place while getting a divorce from perhaps one of the most horrible women to ever walk the Earth. Since then, he has gotten remarried, had four children, been a tremendously successful Governor, soundly defeated a Republican engineered recall effort and waged an equally successful daily ass smacking campaign against Trump. Give it a break. As candidates go, Newsom's about as bullet proof as they come.

[Jack Valentino]

38. Any politician with a record will have a lot of things vulnerable to attack-- I do worry that

with Newsom having served as Governor of California, there will be a lot of stuff---
kinda like Dukakis in 1988!....... HOWEVER---

Newsom and his team HAVE shown a great ability to FIGHT BACK,
and within the same news cycle--- and THAT was Dukakis' greatest failure!

(His campaign's utter failure to refute many of the charges made against him
in a timely way, left even ME wondering 'what the truth was'---
and by the time he did so, it was too late--- although I still believe
that he might have won if the campaign had another two weeks--- but it didn't.)


As for what *some people* might think were any of Newsom's "personal failures",
I don't really know anything about any of that---- but I think the American people
are well beyond anything like that, and the only refutation needed is
"but Trump did this and this and this, Republicans voted for him anyway---
but they want you to think about Newsom's divorce or whatever?? PFFFFFFT "

[Scrivener7]

32. .

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Neither will be the 2028 nominee of their party. Nt

[BannonsLiver]

12. So you won't be voting for Newsom in the Canadian primary?

[PeaceWave]

27. Nice...

[Jack Valentino]

39. HAHAHAHAHAHA! And VANCE will CERTAINLY LOSE the Canadian GOP primary---

to a Canadian McDonald's cheeseburger, who names their running mate in advance---
an order of french fries served with vinegar!

[hlthe2b]

7. JD Vance so oozes insincerity & unctuous "love" for all things Trump-MAGA (for the moment)...

though I suspect most see that he would knife anyone and everyone in the back and say anything and everything to advance to the Presidency. That Trump picked him because he thought he was a "handsome" man--absolutely baffles me. Honestly, though, I do think quite a bit of MAGA sees through him. I certainly believe a hell of a lot of Independents do.

Newsom is sharp as a whip and comes across quite well, IMO. We shall see how this progresses on the DEM side as I know Newsom has his detractors, but I like him. That doesn't mean I'm ready to say "he's the one," but he COULD be.

[senseandsensibility]

8. Exactly!

I'm open to Newsom, but it is so early. I think we're in a good position though.

[pinkstarburst]

9. People do NOT like JD Vance

Newsom may or may not be the one in 2028, but he has charisma and good looks and knows how to handle social media.

[senseandsensibility]

11. Newsom is not perfect but I'd vote for him over trump or jd

any day of the week.

[Blue Full Moon]

13. Same

[Jack Valentino]

40. and twice on Tuesdays!

[msongs]

15. so backing pritzker or the vanity candidate in CA is a no vote? nt

[Blue Full Moon]

17. Pritzker is for taxing billionaires.

Newsom is against it. No more. That's how we got here.

[Dave says]

21. Pritzker could be a good candidate, too

Actually I think we have a pretty good field to pick from. Not sure why I've been reading suggestions that Newsom has alot of negative baggage. What, Musk and Theil don't like him? I've not seen anyone spell out his negatives. However I'd rather we focus on his positives. Why lay down ammunition for the bottom-dwelling rightwing (which is just about all the Repubs, with a few exceptions)?

(See, I can suggest negatives too, but mine are directed at the rightwing.)

[CTyankee]

14. Who else do we have, really? Esp. since we evidently can't have a woman president....

We got Chris Murphy here in CT but I don't see him out there doing too much to raise his profile. I'm waiting to see someone else, really good and sharp, but I haven't yet and it's getting late.

[pinkstarburst]

16. Exactly

Either we decide we are unafraid of nominating anyone, including women, POC, non-Christians, and LGBTQ, which would give us lots of prominent democratic choices, or we have quite limited options of straight white Christian men. Newsom is one of the more vocal options out there. Some of the other names I see floated like Murphy, Beshear... might be nice guys and I'm not opposed to learning more about them, but they just don't have a national profile. I've literally never heard either of them talk, and couldn't tell you anything about them.

[CTyankee]

19. Murphy is not flashy, didn't go to Yale, smart and knows what he's doing. I like him a LOT!

Since we can't have a woman, we have limited choices, so Murphy would be my strong choice.

[senseandsensibility]

23. He is very impressive and was out there almost immediately

after trump was reelected warning other Dems about what is coming. That won a lot of points with me.

[CTyankee]

24. We still don't know if Trump is going to try to pull off running again. Or has he given that up?

[senseandsensibility]

30. Who knows?

He'll probably have thirty different stories about that before 2028, each one crazier than the last.

[Jack Valentino]

42. especially with most other Democratic leaders

'acting like a dog that's been beat too much, 'til they spend half their life just covering up'
~ Bruce Springsteen


On the other hand, our 107-day presidential nominee Kamala Harris
was warning us about Trump BEFORE the election,
but it was mostly "lost in the noise"----

and like Michael Dukakis, she did little to "fight back"
against the GOP's late "anti-trans" ad campaign which did her in, in my judgement---
even though she seemed to have a lot of money to have done so---

Still, recent "do-over" polls show her now beating Trump by high single digits,
which also puts her "in the mix" for 2028---


Personally, for her to be "in the mix" for me in 2028,
I would need to see messaging from her that would energize
the progressives, African-Americans and Democratic economic populists in our party---

now freed from 'the burden' of being 'a loyal vice president',
she has the opportunity to DO SO!---

She has been a 'lady' up until now--- but now we need a pit-fighter!
"MORE AOC and less Hillary (with my apologies to Hillary)!"

[Blue Full Moon]

18. Mark Kelly, Pritzger, Waltz, AOC

[BannonsLiver]

22. It's Prtizker and Walz.

[WarGamer]

28. Actually Harris is definitely in the hunt

[Scrivener7]

34. Love her, but I think that would be a mistake on our part.

[Jack Valentino]

43. It would definitely be a mistake, if she continues to speak with the "caution"

that she did during the latter portion of her short 2024 campaign---
she started well with her propositions about housing subsidies for first-time buyers,
but went weak after that-------

if she was willing to 'take the gloves off'---
the 'white gloves', if I may be so bold as to say so, as a white man---
and the 'corporate gloves' if I may be so bold to say so as a Democratic economic populist---

then, in the coming 2028 campaign, she might become so big with voter turnout
that she could overcome racism and sexism to become the first female President!!!!

(possible campaign slogans: "I told you so" and
"time to give women a chance, since men have FUCKED EVERYTHING UP so badly already"!
or possibly some shorter and cleaner alternative!)

((Throw 'caution' COMPLETELY 'to the wind', and choose AOC as her running mate!!--
or Pete--- just so there's "a man on the ticket"! ))


Newsom has proven that the Democratic base, and even crucial independent voters,
are starving for resistance against the GQP-magat-Trump fascism!!!!

Kamala has the name recognition to get her immediate attention if she speaks---
but I want to see some righteous ANGER from her--- and FORGET the 'Obama model' of
'not appearing to be an angry black male'---

I think there are now a lot of 'angry black women'---
and furthermore, there are a lot of 'angry white males'----!!!!

The moment calls for boldness, and leadership, and political courage
(with the winds at your back!)

If she comes through at this moment, I would quite possibly support her
for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination!---

but I am waiting to see it!

[Scrivener7]

33. Murphy would be my first choice. He's one of the organizers of the People's State of the Union.

Much better use of our time than watching a deranged criminal hallucinate for an hour.

But, if Newsom is the primary winner, I'd be happy to vote for him.

[angrychair]

29. It's my hope

That it's just about anyone but him. Well to be honest there are several I would like to avoid. I'm leaning far more heavily left that I ever had because we need a different approach going forward.
Don't get me wrong, if he runs and if he win I will vote for him BUT until that happens I endorse or promote others I think are better.

I don't think the guy who took it apon himself to personally help destroy a homeless encampment and is actively fighting any taxes on billionaires is not the look we think it is going into the next presidential election.

Reference:
Homelessness
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/s-mayhem-craziness-californians-react-gavin-newsoms-order-remove-homel-rcna165401

Billionaires
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/california/2026/02/04/2026-california-billionaire-tax-act-latest-updates-newsom-opposition/88164971007/

[J_William_Ryan]

35. "That poll shows there's still something very wrong with this country."

True.

Which is why neither 2026 nor 2028 are ‘in the bag’ for Democrats.

[Always Blue]

37. Except he won't do the thing that is needed.

This mess is because the rich will not pony up and pay their taxes.
The democrats don't need someone to champion billionaires.
He will be poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory unless he changes his stance.
I am glad his aides are going back at Trump though.

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

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/gavin-newsom-california-billionaire-tax

[PeaceWave]

41. People completely (and perhaps purposely) misquote Newsom on this issue...

Newsom has not said that he is completely opposed to taxing billionaires. What he has said is that if you're going to tax them, you need to do it at the federal level - Otherwise the evil bastards just move to another state.. Which is common fucking sense. But, it's all too convenient to misquote him on this important distinction.