Even if it wasn’t, it’s a little damning to liberals who now seem to only like a candidate if they think they are “charismatic”, which seems suspiciously ill-defined.
It’s the apathetic voters/ moderates that get on board with charisma. The right has a far more dependable base when it comes to getting out to vote. I think newsome is a scumbag but he’s a much more electable candidate than Harris. His shift to the right recently is gross and is the opposite of what Dems need. I have never liked him as a person but I used to generally agree with his positions, and was far more ok with him running before the last 8 mo or so. AOC would be a better candidate than him, she would inspire people to vote and I think she can overcome the the misogyny and racism by getting a bigger number to vote. Newsome could probably win but would be pulling more votes from Rs than he would bringing more votes to the table.
No offense, but what is even the point of your politics if it can be boiled down to, “sure, this guy has terrible policies and I hate the guy personally, but he can win so I’ll support him anyway”?
Democrats will never win if all they campaign on is ‘we just want the most charismatic person’. People already don’t have any faith in our democratic system, and now we’re just flat out telling them ‘the only thing we care about is aesthetics’.
It’s called pragmatism. Democrats might not be great as a whole but at least their policies generally trend in the right direction and things slowly get better with Democrats like him vs a rapid decline when Republicans get control. I’m not willing to burn it all down, if the other choice is slow improvement. I think he’s a true politician, which I find a distasteful trait, but mostly he’s been a decent governor and it’s really been his rhetoric lately, trying to appeal to the right, I really don’t like about him. I have young children. I can’t torch my life being radical, even if I generally lean to the far left of the spectrum.
I’ve always found this word/idea funny because there’s a famous American psychologist by the name of William James that coined a branch of philosophy by that name, that was basically intended as a way of rationalizing religious belief by observing how it effected someone’s behavior.
People (including James) think that using that word evokes a type of self-evident common sense, when in reality it has always been a word that rationalizes commonly held but indeterminate and often irrational beliefs.
Idk man. You do what’s best for your kids, but I think it’s irrational to abandon your convictions because you have greater faith in the superficiality of american voters than you do in your own political ideals. Maybe it’s true, but it’s just as likely that you are making that the case by undercutting your own values in favor of vanity.
I think it’s far more likely that democrats are mistaking a lack of charisma for a lack of popular policy. Maybe it isn’t because they lack charisma, but because they are in denial about there being something they’re leaving unaddressed with their middling technocratic ideas.
I’m not abandoning my convictions, I’ll vote for the Democrat I think most aligns with my beliefs in the primary which I’m hoping is AOC. If my candidate doesn’t win I will vote for the person I think is better to run the country(just a wild guess but it won’t be the Republican candidate). The green party/Jil Stein doesn’t interest me at all.
If Gavin Newsome is the Democratic candidate, he will be the only viable voting choice. I’d only be abandoning my convictions if I didn’t vote, or voted for an option that has zero chance of winning.
Voting for a candidate that won’t possibly win is not a viable choice. It improves the odds of the person who is counter to all my convictions winning instead of 1/2 of them.
I’m not saying that the DNC isn’t wrong about their approach to getting voters, but the worst option is for them to back a candidate like Newsome without the charisma aka Kamala Harris.
If Kamala was running with Bernie’s platform she probably wins a close race. If Newsome ran on Bernie’s platform it’s probably a landslide. Him running kamala’s platform it’s probably a narrow victory. I think AOC would win by less than Newsome if they were both running her platform, because misogyny, but still wins pretty big overall in the general.
If Newsome ran on Bernie’s platform it’s probably a landslide.
If Newsom had Sanders’ platform, not only would he not be Newsom, he wouldn’t be the democratic darling.
AOC is supremely charismatic, and so is Sanders. Democrats keep them on short leashes because they’re popular, and because they’d completely ruin the democratic fundraising platform. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
Yeah no shit but I’d rather vote for slow progress than deal with the rapid decline of social and economic freedom under Republican rule. Railing against Democrats like Newsome especially after primaries happen is fucking foolish.
This seems a little begging the question.
Even if it wasn’t, it’s a little damning to liberals who now seem to only like a candidate if they think they are “charismatic”, which seems suspiciously ill-defined.
It’s the apathetic voters/ moderates that get on board with charisma. The right has a far more dependable base when it comes to getting out to vote. I think newsome is a scumbag but he’s a much more electable candidate than Harris. His shift to the right recently is gross and is the opposite of what Dems need. I have never liked him as a person but I used to generally agree with his positions, and was far more ok with him running before the last 8 mo or so. AOC would be a better candidate than him, she would inspire people to vote and I think she can overcome the the misogyny and racism by getting a bigger number to vote. Newsome could probably win but would be pulling more votes from Rs than he would bringing more votes to the table.
No offense, but what is even the point of your politics if it can be boiled down to, “sure, this guy has terrible policies and I hate the guy personally, but he can win so I’ll support him anyway”?
Democrats will never win if all they campaign on is ‘we just want the most charismatic person’. People already don’t have any faith in our democratic system, and now we’re just flat out telling them ‘the only thing we care about is aesthetics’.
Big yikes.
It’s called pragmatism. Democrats might not be great as a whole but at least their policies generally trend in the right direction and things slowly get better with Democrats like him vs a rapid decline when Republicans get control. I’m not willing to burn it all down, if the other choice is slow improvement. I think he’s a true politician, which I find a distasteful trait, but mostly he’s been a decent governor and it’s really been his rhetoric lately, trying to appeal to the right, I really don’t like about him. I have young children. I can’t torch my life being radical, even if I generally lean to the far left of the spectrum.
I’ve always found this word/idea funny because there’s a famous American psychologist by the name of William James that coined a branch of philosophy by that name, that was basically intended as a way of rationalizing religious belief by observing how it effected someone’s behavior.
People (including James) think that using that word evokes a type of self-evident common sense, when in reality it has always been a word that rationalizes commonly held but indeterminate and often irrational beliefs.
Idk man. You do what’s best for your kids, but I think it’s irrational to abandon your convictions because you have greater faith in the superficiality of american voters than you do in your own political ideals. Maybe it’s true, but it’s just as likely that you are making that the case by undercutting your own values in favor of vanity.
I think it’s far more likely that democrats are mistaking a lack of charisma for a lack of popular policy. Maybe it isn’t because they lack charisma, but because they are in denial about there being something they’re leaving unaddressed with their middling technocratic ideas.
I’m not abandoning my convictions, I’ll vote for the Democrat I think most aligns with my beliefs in the primary which I’m hoping is AOC. If my candidate doesn’t win I will vote for the person I think is better to run the country(just a wild guess but it won’t be the Republican candidate). The green party/Jil Stein doesn’t interest me at all.
If Gavin Newsome is the Democratic candidate, he will be the only viable voting choice. I’d only be abandoning my convictions if I didn’t vote, or voted for an option that has zero chance of winning.
Voting for a candidate that won’t possibly win is not a viable choice. It improves the odds of the person who is counter to all my convictions winning instead of 1/2 of them.
I’m not saying that the DNC isn’t wrong about their approach to getting voters, but the worst option is for them to back a candidate like Newsome without the charisma aka Kamala Harris.
If Kamala was running with Bernie’s platform she probably wins a close race. If Newsome ran on Bernie’s platform it’s probably a landslide. Him running kamala’s platform it’s probably a narrow victory. I think AOC would win by less than Newsome if they were both running her platform, because misogyny, but still wins pretty big overall in the general.
If Newsom had Sanders’ platform, not only would he not be Newsom, he wouldn’t be the democratic darling.
AOC is supremely charismatic, and so is Sanders. Democrats keep them on short leashes because they’re popular, and because they’d completely ruin the democratic fundraising platform. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
Yeah no shit but I’d rather vote for slow progress than deal with the rapid decline of social and economic freedom under Republican rule. Railing against Democrats like Newsome especially after primaries happen is fucking foolish.
But railing against them well before that is warranted.