Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ShazzieB

(23,140 posts)

35. I will definitely give Newsom close consideration.

Reply to llmart (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 9, 2026, 02:16 AM

Yesterday

I've got my eye on him, but I'm not ready to firmly commit myself to any particular candidate this early in the game. (I want to see the whole field first.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Breaking from Gavin Newsom [View all] senseandsensibility Wednesday OP

We all love our Governor! skylucy Wednesday #1

Oh yes we do senseandsensibility Wednesday #3

K & R.................. Lovie777 Wednesday #2

here as well, Marc Elias DoBW Wednesday #4

He'd make a good president. calimary Wednesday #6

He's my favorite so far. llmart Wednesday #10

thats why i reelected him before. AllaN01Bear Wednesday #24

I will definitely give Newsom close consideration. ShazzieB Yesterday #35

His best qualification azureblue Yesterday #39

I'm surprised it wasn't all along! some_of_us_are_sane Wednesday #9

He's been at the vanguard of MAGA 2.0 resistance from Day 1. BannonsLiver Wednesday #5

Every state needs to do this IMMEDIATELY FakeNoose Wednesday #7

You're right. It should not be necessary. hamsterjill Wednesday #19

Kick Exp Wednesday #8

Purple states must take the same steps. oasis Wednesday #11

This would actually probably survive the supremacy clause too SSJVegeta Wednesday #12

Yes, because states are in charge of elections, not the feds. wnylib Wednesday #26

And it is explicitly stated in the constitution. A fact that matters to 5 whole justices so far. SSJVegeta Wednesday #31

LOL popsdenver Yesterday #36

I'm skeptical. TomSlick Wednesday #13

Nope. Article I, Section 4. paleotn Wednesday #15

I don't read Article I, Section 4 that expansively. TomSlick Wednesday #17

Tenth Amendment. paleotn Wednesday #18

That's a better argument TomSlick Wednesday #20

You're retired JAG, in Arkansas, and you're Texas two step dancing MerryBlooms Wednesday #29

That's what old lawyers do. TomSlick 20 hrs ago #42

My father-in-law was a District Judge MerryBlooms 19 hrs ago #43

The legislation can be written so that a proper judicial warrant would be needed with reason to believe muriel_volestrangler Yesterday #38

Post removed Post removed Wednesday #16

Federal agents are also armed and authorized to shoot someone threatening with a weapon. TomSlick Wednesday #21

depends who gets the drop on who dave99 Wednesday #25

Ridiculous and illegal senseandsensibility Wednesday #22

No, that's not how any of this works. MerryBlooms Wednesday #30

Democrats have to be proactive in these treacherous times dlk Wednesday #14

ding. this . AllaN01Bear Wednesday #23

Post removed Post removed Wednesday #27

I don't know who you're talking about senseandsensibility Wednesday #28

This is exactly what we need!! Proactive vs reactive!!! Pisces Wednesday #32

He thinks and operates from a broad perspective. Sogo Wednesday #33

THis is good, but completely misss the point Bluetus Yesterday #34

i totally misunderstood the headline orleans Yesterday #37

Leading the way. Martin68 Yesterday #40

I believe there are now meds for ballot seizures. C Moon 23 hrs ago #41