Newsom overtakes Kamala in poll of Democratic candidates for President!

[PeaceWave]

According to the poll, California Governor Gavin Newsom leads potential Democratic candidates with 24 percent versus former Vice President Kamala Harris' 18 percent and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 9 percent. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg landed 8 percent of the potential vote in the poll, when those surveyed were asked whom they would vote for if the Democratic primary took place today.

https://www.newsweek.com/new-poll-shows-top-2028-democratic-republican-candidates-for-president-11569922

This is the second straight poll that has Newsom leading the pack for the 2028 Democratic nomination for President. Earlier this month, a poll conducted by Yahoo also had Newsom leading. Now though his margin has increased.

[CTyankee]

1. We can't have a woman for President. Didn't you know that?

[leftstreet]

4. ...

omg I'm probably not supposed to laugh at that, but

[KS Toronado]

9. Bye Bye

[calguy]

3. Polls don't mean a whole lot this eary in the game

As much as I love Kamala, I can not support her for the nomination again. As hard as it is for me to say it, the stakes are simply too high to risk another female candidate for the White House. I love what Newsom's been doing in that regard, but I also have misgivings about running a governor from California.
I’d much prefer to see a governor like Pritzker get in the race. It’s still early, so anything can happen in the next year.

[PeaceWave]

5. As Biden would say, leading a former Democratic nominee for President is a "big fucking deal."

[Bobstandard]

12. My objection to Kamala is that her last campaign wasn't very good

Yes, she had little time to prepare or fine tune it. However, reining in Walz, was a big mistake. He was using words and imagery that people were relating to.I think she listened too much to the usual consultants on that one. As others here and, even she herself apparently have said, she also whiffed on Gaza. Finally, after her campaign loss she disappeared from the scene just when we could have used a little leadership and visible pushback from her. Leaders lead.

[calguy]

14. I feel the same way

I enthusiastically supported her when she stepped in after Biden withdrew, but I would never have supported her in a primary election, given her pitiful performance of dropping out four years prior before the first primary state casted a vote. Not that I don’t love and admire her, but some candidates just can’t garner national support, no matter how qualified they might be.

[CTyankee]

25. Oh, I dunno about that! She was thrown in when finally Biden realized he needed medical help.

I know it's hindsight but he should have realized he couldn't go forward. That awful moment during the debate made my heart sink.

[PeaceWave]

26. "Medical help" - What does that even mean?

[CTyankee]

30. That awful moment in the debate when he looked glazed and didn't speak.

My heart sank when I saw that. Was it a mini stroke or something that would have led up to a stroke? I still don't know what happened. Did you see the debate and when that moment happened? If you did, what did you think?

[PeaceWave]

31. I never once read any suggestion that Biden had suffered a stroke. What you are saying is unsubstantiated.

[CTyankee]

32. So what was your interpretation of what happened to Biden during the debate?

[PeaceWave]

33. Who cares? Biden is out of politics and he is now battling cancer. Leave him in peace.

[CTyankee]

39. I hope for the best for this wonderful man.

[carpetbagger]

47. He froze, choked like an athlete.

He was never a natural debater, and he's a stutterer. Then add chronic hoarseness that set in over the year or so before the debate. Most importantly, he ran his presidency like an old-school president, on the telephone, in the office, not interested in continuous campaigning. So this was something he hadn't done in years. And even a reasonably sharp 80 year old will look, well, 80. Contrast that with Trump, who is loud and self-assured, and I think that's enough to set the ball on the tee.

[calguy]

27. Of course she was

and I supported her fully. It was her first primary run four years prior that disqualifiee her for any future run in my mind.
She couldn’t garner enough national support keep her campaign from fizzling out before the first stage even held its primary. This is not to say anything bad about Kamala Harris. I absolutely love the woman, but the cold hard facts are she just doesn't have national appeal on her own.

[EdmondDantes_]

37. By that logic, Biden would have been disqualified

His first two attempts didn't make it out of Iowa. His first run ended before the primaries and in 2008 he got 1% in Iowa before dropping out.

Conditions can change.

[calguy]

40. Yes they can.

If Kamala enters the race and wins enough delegates for the nomination, I will be an enthusiastic supporter again.

[Renew Deal]

19. BS. Tell that to President Guliani!

[PeaceWave]

22. The surging support for Newsom is in response to him reshaping the electoral map in our favor...

The man is DOING SOMETHING.

[bluestarone]

6. Wait until Kelly

Announces! Then what?

[poli-junkie]

7. I like Sen. Kelly 👍

[padfun]

8. I think Kelly would give us the best chance to win.

nt

[PeaceWave]

15. Newsom can't pick Kelly as his VP. Arizona is too close to California.

[Happy Hoosier]

20. I don't think region really matters anymore.

No one is going to vote for teh Democrat just because someone from their region is the VEEP on a ticket.

[PeaceWave]

23. Oh, I think it continues to matter a great deal.

[JI7]

28. Kelly doesn't like negative campaigning

[themaguffin]

10. He's been more visible than other potential candidates. Polls don't mean much so far out though.

[BigmanPigman]

11. Soooo....this is what my podcaster hinted at last night.

Jack Cocchiarrella was talking about tRump's idiotic rant about Newsom running for POTUS right now.

?si=gwUqj0DO6FakM-Rv

5:30 time stamp

[PeaceWave]

29. I'm not into podcasts...let alone having my own personal podcaster.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Neither Newsom nor Harris will be the 2028 nominee!

These are beauty-pageant-name-recognition polls with little predictive value on who the ultimate nominee will be.

Go review polls from 1974, 1990 and 2006- there is no mention of Carter, Clinton or Obama in those polls. Now look at who the front runners were in those polls…

[BannonsLiver]

24. Have you decided who'll you'll vote for in the Saskatchewan Democratic primary?

[Boo1]

45. Joe BIden

led in almost every poll taken in 2018.

How'd that work out?

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. Carter, Clinton and Obama didn't even show up in the midterm polls before their elections

That’s my point - beauty-pageant-name-recognition polls two+ years out are meaningless and have minimal predictive value.

[Boo1]

51. And that was

20, 35, and 50 years ago


Not sure that any of those are very relevant.

Clinton dominated polling in 2014, BIden dominated in 2018.

If you're keeping score that'd both of the most recent contested primaries.

[Frasier Balzov]

16. Conor Lamb is my nominee.

I'm not sure he's that ambitious.

But he's normal, and has a cool name.

Lawyer, Marine, Pennsylvanian, former Congressman.

Forty-one years old. Pleasant to handsome appearance.

Uncontroversial. Of little interest to anyone compiling opposition research.

Who? you say.

Exactly. Under the radar. He just needs the party to lift him on its shoulders and present him to the voters.

Now, proceed to explain to me how I don't understand politics.

[senseandsensibility]

18. I think there is something to what you say

In this environment where the media will be scouring only the Dem candidate for any whiff of scandal or even something they can ridicule while giving the R a free pass, that may be our only option. But even if we play it safe like that it's no guarantee. When the media wants to it can blow the most trivial thing into a major problem. Remember the Dean scream? That being said, I like Lamb.

[pinkstarburst]

17. I think we are very early in the process

and things can still change quite a bit between now and when we go to vote in the primaries. I don't personally see Harris as a viable candidate simply because the country has already weighed in on her and said no. I feel we cannot run candidates a second time and expect to get a different outcome. Trump was an outlier because he had actually won an election before. Harris hasn't.

I do feel Newsom may be one of the top candidates however, because at this point, the other possible contenders either are being dismissed by many voters for not being straight white Christian males, or if they are in that demographic, they don't have much of a national profile at this point. Things could still change. Candidates may develop more of a national profile. The results of the midterms may give voters more confidence to think outside of the box with regards to choosing a candidate. We will have to see.

I'm personally voting for Pete Buttigieg if he's running, and if Elizabeth Warren is in there, she's next on my list. I like Newsom, though, and I'm open to learning about some of the others that live in other parts of the country that I don't know much about yet, and might learn more about during the debates and primary.

[flamingdem]

21. Gavin has the chops

I'd like to see him chop up his opponent the likely J.D. Couch Vance!

[milestogo]

34. And you think this is a good thing?

[Melon]

35. I doubt Kamala will run.

It would be a mistake in my opinion if she does and I couldn’t support. But I think others guiding the process will ask her not to run. She simply is not a strong enough candidate to bet our future on.

[tritsofme]

36. Harris' numbers are mostly a function of name recognition at this point.

The problem for Harris is that Newsom has become the early frontrunner, and it’s not clear that even her informal entry to the race would change that

[DenaliDemocrat]

38. Neither will win.

The country is not electing a politician from California. It is just not going to happen.

[PeaceWave]

41. You do realise that your user name anagrams out to Denial Democrat...right?

[DenaliDemocrat]

42. I live out west - have my whole life

California is vilified by everyone here

[PeaceWave]

43. Why don't you elaborate on what "out west" means...because there are a whole lot of Republican states "out west."

And, while you're at it, feel free to elaborate on why precisely "everyone" is vilifying California?

[DenaliDemocrat]

44. Okay

Colorado, Alaska, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

I grew up on a working ranch. My dad ran a cow/calf operation. We had 500 mother cows.

California culture does not translate well in most of the west. They are seen as out of touch. I’m sorry this seems to piss you off, but thanks to the electoral college, a Dem candidate needs to over perform. We NEED Nevada and Arizona.

[PeaceWave]

48. Alaska and Wyoming are ruby Republican states. Their disdain is to be expected. As for...

Colorado, folks there have historically been resentful of wealthy Californians moving to that state and buying up real estate. Is that California's fault? No. Colorado will still vote Democratic, regardless of the Party's candidate for President. As for New Mexico, that is a state with barely 2 million people. If "everyone" in NM has chosen to vilify CA (not likely), we could still live with that. NM will also still vote Democratic, regardless of the Party's candidate for President.

Now, regarding the State of California itself, our great state has one of - if not the most Progressive income tax systems - in the entire U.S.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-states-have-most-progressive-income-taxes-0/

Were the Federal income tax structure similar to that of California, the nation as a whole would be in much better financial shape. In California, you pay 0% sales tax on practically all groceries. In California, in most cases, you pay a flat 1% property tax that by statute cannot rise more than 2% per year. Live in one house long enough, like me, and you end up with a property tax somewhere between 1/2 of 1% and 1/3 of 1% of your property's market value. Compare that to what's going on in Texas.

Is the cost of living high here? Absolutely. But, that's only because so many folks want to live here. Clearly those folks don't "vilify" California. And, why do they choose to live here? Because folks here live and let live. We respect the myriad of cultures of our citizens. We view our diversity as our superpower. If someone's got a problem with California, chances are they've never spent much time here.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Imagine believing after the last 12 years of this megalomaniac 1980s era political geography is relevant.

I’m going to crank up some Police and Duran Duran. It’s 1984 again!

[carpetbagger]

50. The two questions...

1. Does the candidate have the ability to make the deep structural changes needed to rebuild the Republic?
2. Does the candidate have the inclination to make the deep structural changes needed to rebuild the Republic?

I'm going with the one who checks those two boxes. So far, I see one that clearly checks the first and one who clearly checks the second. I'll be listening in from the North and getting my absentee ballots.

[Sogo]

52. Here's why that's good:

Newsom is a Governor of a large state with a huge economy. When he talks, he comes across as knowing what governance is and how government works, and he can articulate the facts and figures of a large economy. (California economy is like the fourth or fifth largest in the world.) He understands farm economies and urban economies, agriculture being one of the biggest industries in CA. Basically, the people of this country are on edge about how close to the economic cliff we have become with Trump driving the car and are looking to who can rescue us.

As far as no one voting for someone from CA, how'd that work out for Reagan?...

[yorkster]

53. Sen.Chris Murphy of CT is also impressive

and a fighter.

[Doodley]

54. Which Democrat has stood up to Trump the most effectively and the most frequently? The answer is obvious.