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.

  • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
    47·
    2 days ago

    I’ll vote for who I want to vote for, thanks. And for the record, that will be whoever has the best chance to dethrone trump. If that someone happens to be part of the DSA, so be it. I’ll have zero issues casing a vote their way. If it isn’t. I won’t lose sleep over it.

    See?

    This is the difference between people like you and I. I have no problem voting for whoever is the better candidate of the two- regardless of whether or not they align with my policies ideology. And had more of the people like you subscribed to this theory- we wouldn’t be where we are now.

    Unless or course you’re all still touting the belief that Kamala would have been the exact same as Trump.

    • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
      72·
      2 days ago

      I have no problem voting for whoever is the better candidate of the two- regardless of whether or not they align with my policies ideology

      You do realize the error with this utility calculation, right? A few more years of this style of “pragmatic liberal utilitarianism” will have you voting for a Dem who wants 9 genocides over a republican who wants 10. You’ll find yourself voting for 2036 Dem candidate Ted Cruz as he runs against the republicans’ candidate of Mecha Hitler.

      This strategy isn’t sustainable, and what you’ve shown is that there is no number of Palestinian children you wouldnt sacrifice to bide time for your crumbling oligarchy. At some point, we have a moral duty to the victims of our imperialism to simply dismantle our genocidal country.

      • btaf45@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        2 days ago

        At some point, we have a moral duty to the victims of our imperialism to simply dismantle our genocidal country

        Is your genocidal country (A) Russia, or (B) China? Its hard to tell but we know that both countries have populations so stupid that they allowed dictators to steal their entire governments. We know that Chinese imperialists invaded Tibet to annex their territory and Russian imperialists invaded Ukraine to annex their territory and they do indeed have a moral duty to dismantle their governments.

      • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
        26·
        2 days ago

        A few more years of this style of “pragmatic liberal utilitarianism” will have you voting for a Dem who wants 9 genocides over a republican who wants 10.

        When we go to unprovable predictions about the future so that the your argument cannot be refuted, the debate ends right there. I don’t play what if. I play what was and what is.

        Genocide was going to happen without anyone else being involved. And if America wasn’t involved, you lot would have just found another thing to be outraged over. I’ve seen this time-and-again. This happens every election year.

        Cry all you want about how unjust things are happening. But know that unjust things have always happened just as they are happening now. No matter who is in office, and no matter how much you don’t like it.

        Lastly… You chose this reality by refusing to step up and do your part. And not only that, but you chose this for millions of others. I sincerely hope that your ability to remain in denial of this is able to sustain you through the hardships they all have to face.

        Because we certainly wouldn’t want the hardships and oppression of millions of people to hurt your feelings, would we?

        This argument is over.

        • mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          61·
          2 days ago

          Genocide was going to happen without anyone else being involved. And if America wasn’t involved, you lot would have just found another thing to be outraged over. I’ve seen this time-and-again. This happens every election year.

          least callous seppo

          “If you weren’t outraged by us providing the weapons to bomb brown kids it would probably be us providing the weapons to bomb black kids, there is just no winning with you people…”

          • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
            14·
            2 days ago

            Do you always need to rewrite other people’s arguments in order to have something to argue against?

            I’m the one that gets to illustrate my point. Not you.

            What I said, was that they were going to wage a war against Palestine regardless of anyone’s assistance. I said nothing at all about us bombing anyone at all.

            If you can’t discuss the topic like a mature adult, you can go manufacture your outrage elsewhere. I’m not providing a platform for you to spew nonsense.

            • mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              2·
              1 day ago

              They got to commit genocide on the palestinian people because of the seppo governments assistance. The occupation regime of west palestine would cease to exist if not for your government.

              I also said nothing about you bombing anyone, you provide the bombs and let others do the dirty work.

              Also what kind of argument is “they were going to commit genocide anyway, might as well help them?”

        • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

          When we go to unprovable predictions about the future so that the your argument cannot be refuted, the debate ends right there. I don’t play what if.

          Thats… called a hypothetical. Hypotheticals allow you to do thought experiments - which are not some conniving, underhanded, or fallacious way of arguing.

          If, hypothetically, in 30 years, your choice is between a democrat who wants 10 genocides and a replublican who wants 11, will you still be militantly democrat?

    • mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      63·
      2 days ago

      And had more of the people like you subscribed to this theory- we wouldn’t be where we are now.

      What are you talking about, after bernie got ratfucked people rallied behind killary because she is (supposedly) the lesser evil and then got genocide joe. So they rallied behind genocide joe because supposedly he is the lesser evil and then got killemalla (and he was shuffled off not because of his genocide, but because he was bad tv). So they rallied behind killemalla because she was the supposed lesser evil and now the dems are focustesting gruesome newsom. Your theory is the one that has been the mainstream since 2016 and look where you are now.