Ugh, he is so impossibly 90s centrist

Centrist is a fringe idea of some kind of slur against normal people.

w/season tickets

we are in the position that some candidates— not just Newsom — believe the same thing. It’s sad, but plenty of election postmortems said the same.

There are places like NYC who will laugh at his “woke” awakening, but other places where it might make a 5% difference over next few years.

IF we have elections in 2028, the GOP will be in tatars. It will be like 2008 (if not worse) for them. I'd hold off on making presumptions about what messaging will work 3 years from now. I suspect Dems will have great leeway in the kind of platform that can be successful.

You don't take a seat from a Repuke incumbent by running to the left of left.

Obama didn't win by running as far left as possible. He won with charisma and unifying, aspirational rhetoric.

We all know what it is.

See the longer quote in #17. Is that what "we all know what it is"? I hope not.

I really don't think that we all know what it is. I think it's deliberately vague.

Second, I have been watching the wildly successful anti-oligarchy tour by Bernie and AOC.

It's not the cyclical economy, it's the concentration of over 90% of wealth in America by a few people.

And that's on the marquee.

At each rally issues of rights always come up and are well-received, even in red states.

The GOP is very much into what-about-ism, distracting from the (pardon the expression) elephant in the room. Oligarchical ownership of this country, its business and politicians. Like so.



EYES OFF THE PRIZE.

EYES OFF EPSTEIN.

So, I would say that he is urging the party to lead with the one biggest issue, that causes economic hardship, and which gets the oligarchs to manage the discussion away from it by making elections all about IMPORTANT social and rights issues, but using them as triggers for rage, their political operating system.

When you play back a Bernie-AOC rally, you get the impression that they are attacking the prime cause as job one, and are still extremely strong on social and rights issues.

The point is to win, and then good things come with winning.
You can't change their nuked "hearts and minds" but you can win and pass legislation for the betterment of society.
At that point. "It's the law"

In an early post, I quoted Ibram X. Kendi.

https://democraticunderground.com/100216524810

This is from the epilogue of "Stamped From the Beginning", by Ibram X Kendi.

Are they bringing in new voters or just preaching to the choir?

As a centrist myself, center left, I would never vote for the right. But I know a few Bernie bro friends who voted for trump in 2016 (and possibly 2024) because they wanted to show the "establishment Dems".

The senator's Fighting Oligarchy tour alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is drawing massive crowds — even in red states

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-aoc-crowds-red-states-1235316890/

https://archive.ph/qOZ7S

Bernie and AOC strongly supported Joe Biden during his presidency and campaigned vigorously for Harris and Walz.

There are outliers in any distribution of voters, and I strongly discourage "whataboutism". It's the favorite tool of the GOP.

Think "Willie Horton"

But the Dems have voters in every state including Utah. My question remains, are there a good number of new voters in those crowds, or just Dems/Bernie/AOC voters.

Doesn't mean much if they're just preaching to the choir.

Bernie's not into fake interviews.

Of course, no statistics were taken.

Proof is in the voting, which has seen gains in red states.

Would like to see lots more.

So you're attributing these gains in red states to Bernie?
There are cults on both side I guess. Hi ignore feature. Click

Many voters who would be willing to vote Democratic don't much care for pronouns, land acknowledgements and having to say "pregnant people".

It just doesn't play well with a lot of voters and it's not worth losing elections over.

in our cultural issues. A lot of Americans would be willing to go along with "live and let live". We do more harm than good when we demand that people embrace our favorite cultural causes, repeating our mantra on a word-by-word basis.

We need to learn how to take "yes" for an answer. Or more accurately, to take "I can live with that" as a victory.

We really need to pay attention to Democratic voices. These things are not core issues. These so-called cultural issues distract us from our core mission as Democrats. Newsom is right.

People need health care. People need education and good nutrition. The climate needs to be addressed. These fringe issues need to get exactly the attention they deserve based on one person, one voice, one vote. Not "extra" attention based on a minority of extra loud types trying to portray themselves as sweetie pies. Attention equal to their democratically valid priority within the party.

they also pick out the most exteme bizarre types on social media and many of these types don't even support Democrats but they make it seem as if that's the position or view of most Democrats.

I think what Newsom is doing is taking control of the narrative.

And my workplace encourages us to do so.

But yes, I use pronouns all the time...

One doesn't have to pick these issues out to lead with in order to vote or act on the right side when they come up. But my church leads with them. All three.

Silence on the D side is complicity

please.....thanks

yeah OK

It is civil society's weak commitment to justice

The abuse this regime is perpetrating upon those the woke would champion is being normalized.

Peak America. It's disgusting.

If an OP wants to accuse him of triangulating while misspelling his name I can't take the OP seriously.

The HuffPost also is NOT a credible source of news.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/

and am amazed that anyone on DU could be annoyed enough by that to go to the bother of looking up a website's opinion on it.

"Liberal" is good, here.

To me it's important to have reliable sources. It always has been. It's not annoyance, it's called facts.


What Newsom said was taken out of context. At least insert his entire statement.


It's not helpful to the Democratic party if people pick and chose what context they want to share. Then the RW go with those talking points.

Simply, it's the right wing that are judgmental (of minorities, immigrants, LGBT - especially trans). Newsom saying "we have to be a little less judgmental" is giving in to the lies of the right wing.

There's been zero Democratic/progressive/liberal supporters/voters that are judgemental af.


Got it.

If you extend it to supporters/voters, then Democratic supporters or voters may be judgmental, but Republican supporters/voters are racist, misogynist, insane and murderous - as well as judgmental. But when Newsom is talking about what "we" should do, he is obviously talking about what the Democratic party and its candidates should do.

I hope you do get it. Newsom's remark does not help. He's wrong on this. It is indeed triangulation - giving in to the right wing attempt to shift the American center towards the fascism of Trump and Trumpists.

Clinton and Obama were elected to second terms. Biden was not.

George doesn’t get all the credit.

No President with approval ratings that low has ever been reelected.

The voting booth is very different than some push poll with an agenda.

Harris could have been Jesus of Nazareth; it wouldn't have made a difference.

It sounds like Newsom is saying that he doesn't want to defend some of the issues the GOP has attacked (?)

What is needed IMHO is a steady pivot toward new offense. "Trump is Hitler" will hit its expiration date in 2028, if not sooner. What is needed is for Dems to find the 80/20 issues and framing that put the GOP on defense and then to ride those to victory.

We include 2 lesbians, a Democratic socialist and two old baby boomers. The whole "get my pronouns right or else" thing broke us. My son the college teacher got chewed out for forgetting a student's preferred pronouns. This demand for left wing purity ends up castigating those who have the best intentions but make mistakes. I understand where Newsom's coming from.

Name names, please.

I'm talking about "the liberal purity test" and how we Democrats need to firmly shut down conversation about which candidate is pure enough to support. MAGA has used it against us, and it's stirred up anger because people feel beleaguered about having to adhere to such strict standards. Certainly it's a problem on college campuses where teachers like my son got called into the administrative offices because he refused to add his pronouns to his email signature.

It's about an administrator on that college campus. And if it's about that administrator, why call for censoring ourselves? What has "which candidate is pure enough to support" got to do with the administrator?

If MAGA spread lies when they "used it against us", then stand up to the lies - say "that's not 'us', that's an idiot administrator, and his name is X - the Republicans are lying that this is a Democratic policy". Don't fall for the Republican BS - fight against it.

🤷‍♂️

He's the one who brought it up.

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2025, 11:25 AM - Edit history (2)

Real purity tests might be something like getting pressured into giving an answer to a question that could end up featured on a damaging TV ad, or other form of messaging down the road because it was so out of step with the mainstream, even if the person giving that answer had good intentions.

That ad 100% struck a chord with "culturally normal" voters. It's willful blindness to refuse to acknowledge it.

He is saying to quit pushing purity tests.

The purity tests have alienated voters, Then we lose. So he is saying to not be so judgmental over purity tests and alienating voters.

your on.

purity tests.

The resistance to this common sense suggestion is very noticeable in this thread where people want to attack him for not being pure enough.

politicians that is based on nothing but purity tests.

The one that keeps insisting we can't win in red districts unless we run a centrist?

for not being pure enough.

fringe, is a smear. This is a circular nonsensical disinformation campaign now, as the smear is that leading from the center is somehow a bad thing. Hence the smearing of most good Democrats. It’s not a bad thing to not alienate most voters who are in the center.

When someone says we can't win in a red district unless the candidate is centrist, isn't that smearing progressives?

It’s just denial. Denying political realities isn’t “progressive.” It’s just a disinformation campaign based on purity tests.

1. If you are not a centrist (Political Middle), you are fringe?

2. When someone says we can't win in a red district unless the candidate is centrist, isn't that smearing progressives?

3. Where did I deny political realities?

common sense and simple political truths. The insistence on victimization because the wrong candidate in the wrong district is just plain dumb politics doesn’t need anyone’s time to explain.

Wrong candidate in the wrong district is just plain dumb politics (according to one wing of the party).

of magic words we like with no regard to actually winning. That’s a beauty contest, not a political campaign.

Newsom is focused on actually winning. Yay.

Showing disapproval to one of the wings, is not a way to win elections.

the irony

Redefining and weaponizing words to create Us versus Them division. Nearly every day Jeffries or Schumer are nitpicked to purity hell and back and Democrats lavishly insulted.

Centrist is the new establishment as an insult but it just doesn't sound as impressive, could be the name of a multivitamin supplement.

For sure members of the left (my church, see post up thread) can be characterized as leading with issues like pronouns and land acknowledgement, but what public Democrats do? I think even AOC and Bernie lead with economic issues these days.

So where does the whole party get this reputation? If it's not based on fact, how can we fight it?

As I said, genuine question, not a position in an argument.

or indeed making them minor issues (that is, saying other people should be paying more attention to them; I'm sure many Democrats have "specified their pronouns" somewhere, but there's a difference between that and saying that everyone ought to do it).

When a MAGA talking point is not based on fact, say so - say they're making stuff up. And say that means they are not trustworthy.

And he was doing so well

He's better when he's trolling Dozo the 🤡

but get pasted with extreme micro-examples of its implications.

We should keep returning to the broad princples instead.

It’s class, class, class. That should be the beginning and the end of it. Working class vs. ruling class is all there really is.

Any time you’re asked about any of this stupid, divisive, culture war shit, you answer with class.

“How do you feel about transgender people?”

“They’re in the working class and it’s all of us against the ruling class. We need universal healthcare, education, housing and employment. There’s no reason why all the wealth should go to the very few when the people who create that wealth get nothing.”

“Black lives matter vs. all lives matter?”

“Improving conditions for the working class is what we’re focused on. Ending poverty with universal healthcare, housing, education and employment. There’s no reason, in the richest country in the world, that everyone shouldn’t have their basic needs met.”

Name the culture war issue, that’s the answer. Always spin it back to working class and improving their lives.

But these politicians continue to buy into the division. Because the people who buy them want it that way.

Somehow I’m not sure that would go over very well in that community, which is why what you’re proposing doesn’t quite work. Sounds great though. But in practice it doesn’t cover all the bases. I’m glad Newsom is staking out this territory now. It’s one of many reasons why I plan on voting for him should he run.

to a transgender or Black person who asks him how he feels about them?

"We have to be more culturally normal. We have to be a little less judgmental. We have to be a party that understands the importance and power of the border substantively and politically." ?

Do you really think that "covers all the bases", for a transgender or Black person?

It doesn’t sound like you’re going to be voting for him in the UK Democratic primary lol.

Google what - "transgender person asks Newsom on his podcast what he thinks of him"?

comments from the poster, either

I deeply regret the error. I’ve tried to change it a couple of times, but I keep getting an error message in tiny script that I can’t read on my phone.

Nothing nefarious about it not being corrected. I’ll endeavor to be more careful in the future.

In the general, I always vote D.

Three tiny, cryptic paragraphs taken out of context critical of an effective Democrat. Hm.

Purity testing 101. Fastest, easiest way to divide Dems.

So predictable it's boring.

when reality is this has all gone unchallenged far too long. Thank goodness for Newsom daring to start critiquing the critiquers.

It means we'll never get enough middle of the road people back, if we insist that all we are is anything but white males should be included in the conversation.. In my area anything guns, loses, no matter how right it is.. Point being we can't include everyone if we exclude anyone who doesn't agree with us on one point who may agree on 10 others..

No disrespect intended.

I’m not perfect, and haven’t had enough time to correct the mistake. I promise to be more careful in the future.

I’ve tried fixing the spelling, but I keep getting an error message in tiny print that I can’t decipher.