3w ago

Gavin Newsom surges in 2028 presidential primary poll

www.newsweek.com Gavin Newsom surges in 2028 presidential primary poll

The poll comes as Newsom has taken a more aggressive position in standing up to President Donald Trump.

The poll indicates support for the more aggressive position Newsom has taken in standing up to Donald Trump, particularly over a plan by Republicans in Texas to redraw their state's congressional seat map in the hopes of winning more seats in midterm elections next year.

The battle to become the 2028 presidential election candidate will likely set the new direction for the Democratic Party as it struggles with net favorability at what one recent poll showed to be a three-year low. Newsom has not formally announced his candidacy.

politics @lemmy.world

Gavin Newsom surges in 2028 presidential primary poll

www.newsweek.com /primary-presidential-poll-newsom-surge-2115412

72 83

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

331 comments

The DNC even elevated Trump and other far-right individuals in 2015 as part of Hillary’s presidential campaign.
This is like blaming Biden for things trump did 2016-2020...
And when someone tries to explain that it was literally two different people who just share the same title...
You start yelling that "a president is a president and it doesn't matter".
I'm sure you think you made some great points, but it's literally as ridiculous as not understanding "president" is just a title.
The only thing relevant to current DNC, is that they redid an internal election because the old DNC didn't follow DNC election rules...
Which you're apparently very upset with, you would prefer to keep the results of a fraudulent election?
- Just saw your edit. Voiding the results of an election on grounds of "gender diversity" after several months was the current leadership's decision. They voted on it in June, unless I am misunderstanding something. The election wasn't "fraudulent", it violated their rules and was called into question a month after Hogg started making waves. David Hogg was one of the key people attempting to reform the Democratic Party/DNC and he would've been well positioned to do that as Vice Chair.
  I want progress. Hogg was crushed because he wanted progress, you can't rewrite history. It's undeniable that it all unfolded the way it did because leadership wasn't pleased with him.
  
  It’s undeniable that it all unfolded the way it did because leadership wasn’t pleased with him
  It was the fault of their idiotic diversity rules. And although I like Hogg's preferred candidates, it is also true that DNC members should not be pushing primary candidates.
  
  There will continue to be strong pushes towards preferred candidates. The Super PACs will do most of the heavy lifting.
  The DNC can brand themselves as neutral, but they aren't.
  
  The Super PACs will do most of the heavy lifting.
  I don't know of one single Super PAC that is under the control of the DNC. Can you (A) name one, and (B) show that it spend money in primary campaigns? The DNC is not a person nor is it the most powerful organization of the Democratic Party. The SDC and HDC are both way more powerful than the DNC is.
  
  I am arguing that the DNC and its candidates are still at the behest of billionaires and corporations even with Ken's proposed finance reforms.
  The Democrats can make themselves seem squeaky clean, but they aren't and it is obvious.
- The DNC is not a totally different organization. Citation needed. Billionaires and corporations really didn't want Bernie back then, and they won't want progressives getting in office in the future.
  Until the DNC only accepts money from small donors, and there is campaign finance reform (looking at Citizens United being overturned), it's naive to believe progressives will ever have a shot.
  Their cash flow depends on pleasing their masters, they won't jeopardize that.
  
  and there is campaign finance reform (looking at Citizens United being overturned), it’s naive to believe progressives will ever have a shot.
  So what you are saying is that Citizen's United is the reason progressives "don't have a shot". Do you know understand the chain of events that led us here? In 2000 (A) progressives voted for Ralph Nader, who (B) threw the election to George Bush, who (C.) appointed several archconservative Supreme Court justices, who (D) established Citizen's United.
  So you rexample of Citizens United as being the thing that fucked us over is AN EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVES SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT.
  
  The whole system is broken. If spoiling has been an issue for decades, perhaps we needed election reform a long time ago.
  No, instead we only pass blame to people who want progress. Enough.
  
  Citation needed
  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the DNC is and how it works...
  If you weren't also insisting that you know how it works at the same time, I probably would have stuck around to explain it.
  You're also ignorant of what their fundraising has been like and where it's coming from since the new chair.
  Billionaire large money donations are virtually non-existent, and small donors has skyrocketed.
  But again, if you were genuinely asking questions, I'd stick around to answer. Instead you're just insisting untrue things are reality and demanding I argue with you about it.
  Very few people are going to invest the time required for you to understand this, when this is the way you go about it.
  
  If the DNC's fundraising situation has changed, it's not due to any policy forbidding billionaires and large donors. The DNC has lost the confidence of their major donors, according to Politico two days ago. They have raised very, very little in comparison to the GOP.
  Talking down to me is not evidence that the DNC has changed significantly. When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.
  Even if the DNC is branding itself as friendly to progressives, those progressives will be absolutely crushed when a primary or election occurs. We need campaign finance reform to move forward as a society and to have a semblance of representation and democracy.
  Again, I could give less than a fuck about the DNC's complexity as an organization. It is not nurturing progressives. Evidence is needed to support that assertion. The DNC will be back to taking primarily large donations before long, and so will the candidates that win the primaries (if there is any challenge posed by progressives at all).
  
  When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.
  ....
  No, you're literally and completely wrong.
  Because that is actively happening right now....
  Major Democratic donors have withheld money this year amid skepticism about the party’s direction, while the small-dollar donors who have long been a source of strength are not growing nearly enough to make up the gap.
  And:
  “Chair Martin and the DNC have raised more than twice what he had raised at this point in 2017, and our success in cycles thereafter is well documented. Under Ken, grassroots support is strong,” former DNC Executive Director Sam Cornale said in a statement. “It’s now time for everyone to get off the sidelines and join the fight. Rebuilding a party is hard — rebuilding relationships and programs take time and will require all hands on deck to meet this moment.”
  https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/18/dnc-fundraising-donor-problems-midterms-00512473
  The large donors stopped giving because the DNC pivoted left with Ken Martin.
  And small donors are increasing because they approve of the party moving left
  You literally don't know what you're talking about.
  Everything youve said has been out of date, and yet you still keep blindly insisting you know what reality is, when you clearly aren't aware of what's happening.
  If you don't want people to "talk down" to you, stop repeating misinformation and listen to the people who actually know what's happening.
  We've raised more money that at this point in 2017, without billionaires.
  What is so hard to understand here?
  Why do you keep consistently insisting that we should ignore reality in favor of your opinions?
  
  They have raised nothing truly significant by their own merit and the billionaires/etc. will be back - they will need their money to win. There is no visible shift left or to socialist policies. Support your assertions, Ken Martin and the DNC have already been arguably very hostile to a leading progressive in the DNC, no matter how you spin it. I provided receipts - the time for the DNC to enforce neutrality would've been during the court case where they were called out for rigging the primary against Bernie, not after Hogg got elected as Vice Chair with publicly visible positive intentions and goals. If literally everything has changed in 2 months, enlighten me.
  Just because the DNC and Ken Martin are seen as hopeless by large donors now doesn't represent a significant shift. Americans also don't see the DNC/Democratic Party very favorably, according to recent polls. If small donors are flocking to the DNC more than they have in the past, it's because of Trump and what is left of democracy at stake.
  Even on Ken's Wikipedia regarding his position as DNC chair put it this way:
  Martin's first months as DNC chair have been described as chaotic and plagued by infighting. Under his leadership, the party has seen a significant drop in donations.
  Infighting against progressives is clearly what they are referring to.
  You're asserting he's garnering more small donations because there is a shift left. I am arguing that it's because people are more politically active.

331 comments