Hacker News Reader

Comment by h2odragon | Hacker News Reader

Preparing for a Presidential run, isn't he.

No principle need be served by these actions. He can even be aggravating his supporters with them, its not like they'll vote for someone else.

The important thing is getting his name in the news. Bonus points for doing it in some context that makes him seem a little more "centrist" or can be spun that way in the upcoming campaign.

Does Biden go down easy, or hard? Don't think Newsom would be flapping his wings like this if he didn't see the big rooster's perch being empty soon. Think he's been told he'll be the Party Choice already.

View on HN

Gavin Newsom cannot be reelected as Governor of California. There is no Senate election the year his term is up, and he appointed both Senators he would be running against so that seems like an unlikely avenue anyway. It seems like the only career progression he has is to go national.

I don't think that means he's running for president in 2024. I think it means he's auditioning for a cabinet position to be able to keep his name in the news until 2028.

Newsom has "California" next to his name, which is disqualifying for a presidential run as far as I can see it. Too many independents with the opinion that "Newsom made Cali a shithole"

I think it's mostly Republicans with this view.

Anyway, I think national voters are mainly unfamiliar with Newsom, and once he gets exposure he'll be well received. His performance on Hannity is one example of this.

I've met Democrats from California with this view as well.

Those people have been brainwashed by conservatives. I believe Newsom still got handily elected throughout the state, though.

there are many negative results of his management one can observe without talking to conservatives: pge bills and blatant crimes rise are some of them.

> blatant crimes rise

Stop watching Fox news.

I guess you are trolling..

No, just someone who remembers the discourse about violent crime in the 90s, eg. It was much worse than today. American cities are universally much safer than when I was a kid. It makes the claim ridiculous.

You can't blame a governor for crime rates anyway. Nor can you draw much correlation to things like policing. It's idiotic and a juvenile view of how and why crime happens. These things happen from so many societal factors and it isn't politicians causing or preventing it.

But it's been a republican culture war wedge issue for a few years lately. Seems like you fell for the con.

in 90s it was worse, then it got better, then current dems consistently making it worse again.

> You can't blame a governor for crime rates anyway.

dems made small value crimes not felony, it is strong incentive for crime rise, and strong motivation for police to not go after such cases.

> in 90s it was worse, then it got better, then current dems consistently making it worse again.

Call me when the murder rate reaches the 1990s peak. They haven't. I'll say again, American cities are much safer than they've been in my living memory.

> dems made small value crimes not felony,

This is a horse shit explanation. Firstly, that was a ballot initiative passed by will of the voters, probably because California prisons, like most US prisons, have been overcrowded and we have insanely high incarceration rates exceeding pretty much every other nation, which is not appropriate. Secondly, I think people who have looked at this will tell you it had no impact on crime rates. Unless they work for Fox news etc.

> that was a ballot initiative passed by will of the voters

that path is easily manipulated and compromised, because majority of voters don't have capacity to carefully review all propositions. And yes, population blindly supporting dems are also accountable for their actions.

Not interested to discuss your other statements, because I see them as low quality.

> dems made small value crimes not felony

Are you seriously blaming the Democrats for the invention of misdemeanour crimes? Or for adjusting the threshold between misdemeanour and felony according to inflation?

Texas has misdemeanour theft to a far higher threshold than California… oops.

Stop watching Fox News.

texas has ccw, so citizens can protect themself if carjacked on gas station.

How is that relevant? GP was talking about the threshold for misdemeanor vs. felony crimes, and the fact that the threshold is higher in Texas than in California.

Criminals will do more crimes if they not stopped by measures. Measures can be punishment and police enforcement or citizens being able to self defend. In California dems are aggressively reducing both.

This is your conspiracy theory version of you got from conservative media. They're using perception of crime as a wedge issue, just like they used to do with abortion, or do currently with gay and trans bashing. They won't do anything different, and certainly nothing that works better. They just want you angry and afraid.

I don't watch conservative media, I just see more and more posts on r/bayarea about carjacking or blantant assaults and robbery, then I was thinking about buying gun and applying for ccw, and found about SB2 bill which prohibits ccw in most reasonable places.

> Converse curiously.

From the guidelines.

For those interested in diving deeper on the topic of crime in California: [0]: https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ [1]: https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023...

> While violent and property crime rates increased in 2021, both remain relatively low

That's pretty much it. I get so tired of internet discussions where people do not understand this, and I lost my patience to "converse curiously" with people who choose to remain ignorant of this in order to justify fear or anger or dehumanizing hate.

I've had countless discussions, including on HN, where you can cite this and people will sooner say that crime statistics are false, and specifically falsified in a way that destroys their argument, than admit being wrong or not having a complete perspective.

> I lost my patience to "converse curiously" with people

When this happens, simply refrain from commenting until you regain that patience. This forum only remains civil if we all make our best effort to keep it that way.

I think it's possible that we shouldn't be patient with some ideas.

Eg. American political discourse has gone so crazy that people can openly support fascism and it's acceptable. I don't think it ought to be.

I am a California voter who only votes Democrat, and I have voted for Newsom, but I wouldn't say I particularly like him. I don't know anyone who does. Are there people who really like him?

The guy isn't over 70 years old, far left, or a far right looney. Including YIMBY, that's pretty good these days.

> Including YIMBY

that's has to be verified, if any affordable housing was approved in reasonable distance from his current house. Approving affordable housing in other's backyard is obviously not YIMBY.

Yeah, that's a common opinion of Newsom that I hear all the time. I'd say it's pretty close to my opinion too.

But seeing him debate Hannity had something click for me. He is pretty sharp, and has some qualities that national democrats have seemed to lack. I started to think he may have a better chance at the presidency than people give him credit for. I start to think a lot of people haven't really gotten to know him, self included.

Time will tell how that plays out.

I don’t think an attack like that works on the national level, he’s very polished in his media appearances and his public persona.

His personal life is a potential liability, though. He’s a pretty well-known philanderer and that’s exactly how the right knows how to attack opponents.

> His personal life is a potential liability, though. He’s a pretty well-known philanderer and that’s exactly how the right knows how to attack opponents.

nah, it's the cali is a shithole thing.

“Opinion”?

I disagree. Californians have enjoyed a lot of supremacy at the national level. Nancy Pelosi was the House speaker for quite some time, Kevin McCarthy was elected House speaker. State representatives are pretty immune to this kind of criticism. If someone who managed San Francisco tried to run for national office I think what you said would happen, but I think more than just independents would call them out.

But he did run San Francisco as a mayor.

It’s the world’s 4th largest economy if it were a country.

Of course, in an oligarchy (which we are) that has a lot of pull.

The “shithole” state nonsense is just copium.

We are not an oligarchy and that term has a specific meaning you seem to not understand. In the US you don’t become wealthy because of your control of government (an oligarch) you control the government due to having first acquired wealth. This is a plutarchy, which American is a lot closer to being.

> In the US you don’t become wealthy because of your control of government

Why is every single member of Congress vastly richer after a few years in office?

It's not like 1 out of every 8 Americans live in California or anything.

You can buy mushrooms legally less than a mile from the White House.

I’m very skeptical of this, I think he’s slowly raising his profile for a 2028 run.

He’s categorically denied over and over again that he’s interested in forcing Biden into a primary and I think it’s a misread to see this as anything more than a governor doing their job. He’s never left any ambiguity in his answers on this topic.

VP?

That, I could see.

No. VP-replacement speculation always happens, but the actual replacement doesn't in the modern era.

Besides, there is no political way that, should the position become vacant, Biden would choose a white man to replace Harris.

Note I meant that it might be to be able to run for VP, not that he'd necessarily win the position if he did so.

You no longer run for VP. In the modern era the presidential candidate just chooses who they want.

By "run" I just meant that he'd appear in the set of people that might be considered (by Biden) if for any reason it turns out he wants Harris replaced.

Then go up to my first reply. Newsom isn't going to run for a position he has a 0% chance of winning and will piss people off trying. He probably wants a cabinet position.

I guess that would make sense, but what cabinet position would he actually want (and see as a stepping stone for later)? Secretary of State?

State would make a lot of sense.

I guess it would have the benefit of giving him exposure, and I'm not sure if there's a better cabinet position otherwise, but does being secretary of state actually help with making a case for people to like him for presidency? How much of the credit does he get if things go well vs. the blame if things go poorly?

> He’s categorically denied over and over again that he’s interested

A politician’s denials don’t mean much.

He can easily say that the the polls are showing that most Americans seeing Biden as mentally and physically unfit for President and would even vote for Trump, so he is reluctantly stepping up to save the country from Trump.

Typically, folks who are running or thinking about running don’t directly answer questions about it.

It’s also very common for inside knowledge on an exploratory committee to be leaked to the press ahead of a run. Serious candidates hire a team to strategize months before making an announcement and it never stays silent because the exploratory committee itself tends to leak in order to gauge the early reaction. We’ve seen neither of these things from Newsom.

Newsom has so much baggage a presidential run for him is a pipe dream. A pipe dream that he's clinging to but a pipe dream nonetheless.

You think more or less baggage than the presumptive Republican nominee?

Trumps baggage doesn’t matter as much because he has a cult that will vote for him literally no matter what.

They’ve even been presented with equally or even more right wing candidates and have rejected them for Trump. It’s not even about the politics. It’s about their desire for a strong man ruler.

A pipe dream, or a shroom trip

Reply on news.ycombinator.com