California Governor

[Suckrates]

51 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

I wonder if Gavin Newsom will be the next POTUS, and Xavier Becerra will be the next Gray Davis.

The same factor could drive both:  recession, AI bubble collapse, bad Forever War.  Bad times somewhere in the ballpark of 2008.  In that scenario, Becerra will have been Governor for two years.  And he would own it.

If I had to bet today, I would bet that after a decade of declining 80 year olds as POTUS (not to mention a declining America) voters will want someone younger. That said, Newsom and Harris as Guv and Veep are the most experienced.  Will voters put age or experience first?  Who knows?  Will Trump actually try to go for a third term?  Who knows?

But I digress.  Nothing suggests Becerra will be a beloved Governor.  Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Gavin Newsom were all either movie stars or political icons by the time they ran for Governor. 

Probably the best case for Becerra is he is a Democratic Pete Wilson.  Wilson climbed through the ranks as a competent bureaucrat and politician at a time when California was kind of a purple state.  Becerra could do eight years of that in blue state California, perhaps.

Not sure Kamala would be willing to play 2nd fiddle AGAIN,  when she was almost 1st fiddle in 2024......?   It would be almost like demoting herself....you never want to do that in a political arena because it sticks with you.    But as a Black woman in American politics, playing 2nd fiddle may be the best gig she can get ?   

I'm not sold on Newsom.....  he seems like the "I'm ready for my closeup, Mr Demille" kinda guy.....   He would be just another Tik Tok President......   I'm already over those. 

[stevenkesslar]

45 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

Not sure Kamala would be willing to play 2nd fiddle AGAIN,  when she was almost 1st fiddle in 2024......?   It would be almost like demoting herself....you never want to do that in a political arena because it sticks with you.    But as a Black woman in American politics, playing 2nd fiddle may be the best gig she can get ?   

I'm not sold on Newsom.....  he seems like the "I'm ready for my closeup, Mr Demille" kinda guy.....   He would be just another Tik Tok President......   I'm already over those. 

 

I wasn't suggesting that.  Although the way I wrote it was unclear.  My point is that Kamala as Veep and Newsom as Guv are the most experienced.  I was not suggesting they would end up on a ticket together.  

And the nation is not sold on Newsom, either.  The polls have been consistent. She's # 1, he's # 2, and Pete is #3. They are the three that consistently crack double digits.  I can easily see how any of those three win the nomination.  AOC is #4, sometimes cracking double digits.  I hope she runs instead of Bernie, so that wing of the party has a platform.  But I can't see her winning.

If I make the most optimistic assumptions about the economy - like this is the new Roaring 20's - the trite historical analogy is that JD Vance wins in 2028.  And he is the new Herbert Hoover left holding the bag.  I don't think that scenario is likely.  More likely is that the shit has hit the fan by 2028, and the stock market and economy have both tanked.  Lots of Americans of course feel like we are in a recession already, thanks to the generosity of the billionaires.

What Newsom has going for him is lots of experience actually running an economy.  And managing the split in a big state between progressives and traditional liberals, who are now kind of the moderates.  While Harris has the plurality of the base, she has never really done either.  Michigan is a great example.  You can blame it on Biden, not her.  But in Fall 2024 she could not unify Michigan enough to win the state.  And I don't think she ever closed the deal on how she was the better steward for the economy.  Arguably, Newsom has.  At least in California.  They tried to recall him and got nowhere.

The rise of Democrats in California was largely due to what I'd call traditional liberal women.  Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Harris.  Feinstein and Boxer epitomized the Year of the Woman in 1992.  Which now seems minor by comparison.  The Governor's office was a safe space for White men like Davis, Brown, and Newsom.  Once Becerra wins it will be all men again.  And two of them will be Latino men.

If the goal was to build a made-in-the-lab ideal Democrat, I think there is a great argument that a Latino male would be the ideal.  I thought Ruben Gallego was the one who best matched that idea.  But he has stumbled around being too palsy with Eric Swalwell, and having some festering handsy whispering of his own.  The most likely Latino male that could be POTUS is 2029 is Marco Rubio.  AOC is of course Latina.  But like I said if she runs I think she will be like Bernie 2016 and 2020.  She can't get a majority in a Democratic primary.

El-Sayed was a turning point, I think.  Like Pete said, right now all eyes are on Michigan.  The fact that someone that progressive - abolish ICE!  Israeli genocide! - could win the primary in a swing state definitely shows things are changing.  And now the question is just how badly Iran wants to crush Trump's worthless rapey testicles before the election. The sorry piece of shit will limp into the midterms with fat ankles and crushed balls and a stupid barking dog rooting for dead children with AIDS in Asia. 

It's gonna be messy, and tragic, and exciting.

[RockyRoadTravel]

13 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

The fact that someone that progressive - abolish ICE!  Israeli genocide! - could win the primary in a swing state definitely shows things are changing.  And now the question is just how badly Iran wants to crush Trump's worthless rapey testicles before the election. The sorry piece of shit will limp into the midterms with fat ankles and crushed balls and a stupid barking dog rooting for dead children with AIDS in Asia. 

It's gonna be messy, and tragic, and exciting.

History, history, history. The Ayatollahs fucked over America with the hostage taking in 1979, knee capping Carter and delivering America to the evils of the Reagan revolution.  No idea what their calculation was there.  Reagan has lead to the long slow demise of the American economy and social fabric. Did the Ayatollahs really play that much of a long game?  Were those chants about "Death to America" really about what the neo-cons have done to the USA? 

This time around are the Ayatollahs going to continue to play the long game.  Twist The Great Incompetent's tiny balls in a way that will aid the Republicans to maintain power, and continue the long slow demise of the USA. Or will the Ayatollahs castrate The Great Incompetent in a way that will aid the Democrats to win, end this stupid war of choice, and potential have an adversary that is interested (and capable) of negotiating a deal that will end the conflict, open the Straight of Hormuz, and end Iran's nuclear weapons potential (like Obama had already done 10 years ago).  

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

36 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

History, history, history. The Ayatollahs fucked over America with the hostage taking in 1979, knee capping Carter and delivering America to the evils of the Reagan revolution.  No idea what their calculation was there.  Reagan has lead to the long slow demise of the American economy and social fabric. Did the Ayatollahs really play that much of a long game?  Were those chants about "Death to America" really about what the neo-cons have done to the USA? 

This time around are the Ayatollahs going to continue to play the long game.  Twist The Great Incompetent's tiny balls in a way that will aid the Republicans to maintain power, and continue the long slow demise of the USA. Or will the Ayatollahs castrate The Great Incompetent in a way that will aid the Democrats to win, end this stupid war of choice, and potential have an adversary that is interested (and capable) of negotiating a deal that will end the conflict, open the Straight of Hormuz, and end Iran's nuclear weapons potential (like Obama had already done 10 years ago).  

 

 

 

I think the near consensus is that the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's new nuclear weapon.  Although Robert Pape thinks they'll end up with actual nuclear weapons in a few years, too.

Of course, the MAGA/Election Denier/War Loss Denier/Rape Denier/Factory Job Loss Denier crowd will have none of it.  

Pape thinks this will end like VietNam:  the Democrats will defund it.  If that is true, it suggests that the Gay Hanging theocrats will want Democrats to take over and starve the war.  But we agree.  They are all purpose theocrats.

There is a possible upside here.

Back in W.'s day Tony Blair said something that stuck with me.  He said it is rare in history for all the puzzle pieces to be thrown up in the air.  When they land again it gives leaders a chance to sort them out differently.  That may not be verbatim.  But something like that. At the time I marveled at what a total ass kisser he was, making a strategic disaster seem like some kind of historical gift.

But this could be such a thing, if we are all lucky.  It gets the US out of the Mideast Forever War business, hopefully.   If the Iranians are as tough ass as they can be with Trump, I think it sets Democrats up to eventually give as little as possible to Iran to set up at least some kind of precarious order.  Coalitions will change.  On balance, the US has already lost strategic power and will lose more.  But given that we have proved repeatedly that we use power stupidly, when W and Trump are in power especially, that is not a bad thing.

The thing Trump is saying that is true is that the Iranian economy is wrecked.  So if there is a war between the part of the US that is MAGA stupid, and the part of Iran that is zealots who wants Holy War, great.  Let them keep trying to destroy each other.  Maybe the dipshit leaders will all assassinate each other.   Now wouldn't that just suck? 

We'll all pay a price for it, of course.  But the idea that Trump and Iran's zealot leaders are both getting weaker is not necessarily a bad thing.   Oh, and let's not forget the Genocide Jew.  Although even if the Genocide Jew goes, a majority of voters in Israel do seem hellbent on their genocide.  Any candidate that has a chance of winning opposes a two state solution, which a strong majority of Americans favor.

There is only one downside.  If things get bad enough, Trump will turn our stupid barking dog into Trump Steaks to feed the troops.  I'd miss the poor stupid yapping thing.

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

But this could be such a thing, if we are all lucky.  It gets the US out of the Mideast Forever War business, hopefully.   

 

The thing that is going to get us out of the Mideast forever is wind power, solar power, tidal power and any other kind of renewable power that you can think of.  As some brilliant pundit said during the first invasion of Iraq:  "if Kuwait grew broccoli no one would give a shit about invading."  Or words to that effect.  

Yet another reason to recognize human driven climate change.  How many degrees of temperature rise have Middle East wars caused over the last 45 years?  I bet 1.5C to 2C of global warming.