Define normal pissant. I'm sure my Inland Imperial cultural norms would rub a shitstain like Newsome in all the wrong ways, least of all my absolute contempt for authority.
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
33 points (81.1% liked)
politics
28562 readers
2223 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It'll never cease to amaze (read: infuriate) me how conservatives and establishment dems continuously say that trans issues are getting a "disproportionate amount of time" when we weren't ever going to get jack shit from Biden or Harris outside of a mention here or there.
It of course goes without saying that these issues don't detract from other ones and time can and should be spent on them all. It also of course goes without saying that Newsom can eat a dick.
- Vire (vi/vim
Democratic voters to Newsom: Fuck off.
Newsom effectively wants the Dems to be less progressive. From my perspective, the Dems continue to lose because they continue to shaft their progressive constituents, of which there are many.
Things have shifted so far to the right in the US that mainline Dems would be considered conservative in many other countries of the world. The US does not have a left party, progressive or otherwise. If you accept this, then it's easy to suggest Newsom is just one other centrist masquerading as a leftist. His claims here support that view.
There are many, many other reasons not to like Newsom, but ultimately he is a symptom of a much deeper problem.
Yeah but you can’t start shifting things left again unless you get elected. We like to think it’s just reality that shifted right, not the voters, but maybe they are.
Each side has mostly dedicated voters who will always vote for them, and a relatively small population who can go either way. They’re the ones who decide the election: who are they?
I can't hear what you're saying with all that shoe pollish in your mouth.
Watching a few of his answers and the smarmy face he maintains throughout them makes me wonder why anyone in the know thinks this guy has a chance in the primary.
The DNC expects voters to just fall in line, just like they did with Harris... oh wait.
Harris is a great example because she had a lot of institutional support and big money backing in 2020 and flamed out. With alternatives available, he's toast.
He just can't compete on emotional appeal with people like AOC or Buttigieg (I don't trust him, but he can speak well). And some of the other governors could point to political achievements, but his governing highlights have been stopping Democrats from creating law to help people and thinking his own rules didn't apply to him during the pandemic.
For many reasons, unfortunately Buttigieg is a better candidate than Newsom. That's kind of sad.
Can you point to any sources about Buttigieg? I have to admit to not paying attention to him until very recently, when he’s been a voice of reason. I don’t know his history
It's a combination of two things, neither of which is totally disqualifying.
The first is his previous employment at McKinsey. They're a consultant firm that frequently gets brought in by companies to basically do bad things like fire a ton of people or manipulate prices. Not kidnapping children, but it's a weird place to work if you're driven by higher values.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters/
The second is in the 2020 primary he started out with progressive messaging and then pivoted to the role of moderate because Bernie and Warren sucked all the air out of that lane. So it just kind of paints the story that he doesn't really believe in anything. And with the moderate switch he courted a lot of money from big money fundraisers and spent a lot of time talking about what we can't do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/buttigieg-campaign-moderate.html
I don't get the impression he's deeply committed to any ideology. If he saw progressivism as the best way to advance his political career, he'd be progressive, but with the influence of big money and lobbyists, I doubt it'd work out that way. On the optimistic side he'd be an Obama, that talks hope and change and then continually defaults to "practicality" as lobbyists and establishment politicians tell him not to move too fast. On the pessimistic side he'd be a Sinema, who said progressive things in their younger days but then abandoned it all for ruthless centrism.
Thanks
He has a chance if there are enough rich people backing him.
Harris had a lot of the exact same rich people backing her in 2020. Some politicians just don't have "it" no matter how much money is behind them.
And, coincidentally, Harris never won a primary
Counterexample: Biden's victory in South Carolina combined with most of his primary opponents dropping out and endorsing him all at once carried him to victory, aided by rich person backing. Newsom can use a similar strategy to win the 2028 nomination.
This just shows that money can boost a candidate but not make them happen if they don't have the ability. Biden was the default, the refuge after all their other candidates weren't demonstrating an ability to go the distance. If money alone was enough, they would have just stayed with Harris.
Newsom doesn't have the history to be that default option. Why choose him when Buttigieg is out there, no longer just a mayor, or Beshear is telling his red state success story, or Kelly is out there as a purple state astronaut? Plenty of moderates to choose from with better stories and better personalities.
You would be right if voters have an unbiased objective view when voting. However, Newsom's rich backers can get the press to talk up Newsom while making hit pieces on his opponents. Like, if Newsom won South Carolina by only a few percentage points, the NYT could write a piece with the headline "Newsom slams primary opponents by winning South Carolina in a landslide. Buttigieg expected to drop out".
And don't forget all the paid infiltrators on social media looking to tip the scales in Newsom's favor. Reddit will be filled with articles about why Newsom is the one and only viable candidate in the Democrat primary. Facebook will get a ton of Newsom advertising. Dating apps will have bots profiles that say Newsom is the bot's favored candidate.
And only a handful of people bother to track down primary sources themselves. They will absolutely fall for the social engineering and support Newsom in droves.
Again: If they could have done that to win the primary, they would have stuck with Harris and done it. Or if they were secret Biden stans the whole time they would have managed Iowa and New Hampshire to not be such a failure for their chosen one. They're reacting and tweaking, and they have more effective and more efficient options.
In light of the recent news of the DNC report, which of those options is willing to call what's happening in Gaza a genocide? Buttigieg is a great communicator, but it won't matter if the message is Republican light.
I don't think any of the moderates have the ability to put the threat of fascism behind us, but I think Buttigieg could definitely talk his way through the issue and maybe triangulate a position to say just enough without ruffling donors' feathers. Or maybe he'll just be a progressive in the next run. I think he's a chameleon and went moderate simply because the progressive channel was full up.
Though really, I think Harris probably could have done that too. People really wanted to like her and not have to deal with that "genocide" cognitive dissonance. Her and Biden's failure on that front really was an extraordinary level of political obstinance.
If it's a competition of getting rich people then you're guaranteed to loose.
Stop being hypercapitalist swine
That's rich coming from a dude who wants to see corporations control our identities, we use less resources but AI data centers and the Epstein class can leave the faucet running all while claiming he cares about the middle class.
Shit he might just win...
Who decides what's normal, Newsom? FUCK YOU
I think this is a critical point. Broadcast TV and Radio used to create a common shared cultural identity. But now a lot of the population has hyper personalized algorithms driving what content they consume, and there's an overwhelming amount of content out there. At least once a week I hear someone mention a new "must watch" TV show or podcast I've never heard of and don't have time for.... So yeah, who defines "culturally normal?"
Yeah I had two thoughts. What is culturally normal. Alls I can say for certain its definately not what the average republican thinks it is.
DEMOCRATS want to ABORT babies AFTER they are BORN!!!!
I think Newsom is the one who could take notes on what’s culturally normal.
Well now I’m just gonna be weird EVEN HARDER.
Divide-the-left effort going hard here.
You can tell because they have no alternative, only offering demotivation/departicipation
Not like they're putting a gun to Gavin's head and forcing him to repeatedly be a transphobic shithead (like, he has been this way for years in multiple interviews with multiple outlets now)
If we don't want the left getting demotivated we should get leaders who don't attack us all the time
I mean we get these dick heads because of how even ranked choice voting works.
It doesn't matter if 1/3 of lefties vote for a true leftie, if we don't beat the Dems, then our votes go Dem....unless your not putting any rank vote on a Dem. Witch (it hurts to say it) is irresponsible
Well, that approach got you Trump and Stephen Miller. How’s that going?
Gavin Israel First Newsom
Coming from the most abnormal idiot
But people will still hold their noses and claim, "He's better than Trump!"
He probably is, but so is a rotting pile of dead cockroaches. It's not a high bar.
You mean be more like Kamala.....
Ok, so if we want to win we should do the opposite thing then.
You gonna take a bite of that turds sandwich?
I actually agree with him.
We need to stop letting the culture war distract us from the class war.
If he's trying to say we should stop falling into the framing given to us by the unhinged right that talks way more about trans than trans probably do (Donvict just drops random phrases into his rambling monologues now: "transgender for everybody" and "men in women's sports"), he's not wrong about that.
I heard a far more nuanced take on this kind of thing on Pod Save America, by the way.
I’ll never vote for a democrat again it Newsom gets the nomination, for any office, of any power. There needs to be consequences for a party that’s supposed to be an opposition party. And before you loser “vote blue no matter who” people run your jaws: I will never vote for a republican either and never have. Stand for something for once in your miserable lives instead of proving that you would support trump/vance if their party affiliation was Democrat.
Yes, JD Vance will be better.
You’d vote for him if he was a democrat. You stand for NOTHING.
Show me where Newsom endorsed something like Unhumans.
It's one thing not to be all that wild about Newsom's rather middling take on trans (specifically, transwomen in women's sports, IIRC), but it's quite another to act like there is no difference here.
People aren’t just randomly Democrats or Republicans - each group’s “fleet” is headed toward different general destinations. Which is why “i recognize significant differences between parties and the moral alignment of each” is a reasonable thing to stand for, and which can lead your choice.
Also, like you know me, what a laugh.
JD Vance won't be better, but all of the people voting for the lesser evil should be punished for their incompetence.