How will Joe Biden GOVERN? General Biden Administration F**kery Thread
- Thread starter FAH1223
- Start date
the cac mamba
Veteran
good. both of them should be utterly destroyed/expelled from democrat politics forever
the cac mamba
Veteran
-
Last edited:
the cac mamba
Veteran
BRUTAL review 
In her new book, Biden’s former press secretary lets Democrats have it
Summarize
Karine Jean-Pierre’s memoir offers a critique of Biden and the Democrats that is outdated, impractical and driven more by personal grievance than policy.
Becca RothfeldOctober 22, 2025
Imagine parting ways with the Democratic Party not because of its unwavering support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he violated international law and waged a bloody campaign against civilians in Gaza; not because of its humiliating failure to mount meaningful opposition to the Trump administration’s assault on just about everything of value in the country; not because it continues to run candidates in their 70s and 80s, one of whom opted to die in office at 90 rather than cede her seat to someone younger; not because of its inability to expand access to health care, or protect immigrants, or tax the wealthy, or really get anything done at all; not because of its politely noncommittal affect and rhetoric of facile uplift, or its members’ tendency to address the public as if they are delivering the keynote at a corporate retreat; not because the Democrats have no political vision, something of a liability for a political party; but rather because of the single sensible — if very belated — thing they have done in recent memory, which was to usher a doddering Joe Biden out of the 2024 presidential race.
These contortions are hard to imagine from anyone but the most devoted apparatchik, which is exactly what Karine Jean-Pierre is. A lifelong Democratic operative who most recently served as President Biden’s press secretary, Jean-Pierre is still smarting from the perceived wounds the administration suffered at the hands of its treacherous party. In her new book, “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,” she recalls, “I watched Democratic leadership abandon, and in the end betray, a man who’d led our country through a pandemic and a time of historic political turmoil.” Worse, some party leaders had the audacity to question whether Vice President Kamala Harris ought to be Biden’s preordained successor. Calls for an open primary were “an insult to Harris,” Jean-Pierre exclaims — never mind whether the vice president’s coronation was an insult to voters, who might have preferred to be consulted.
Unsurprisingly, “Independent” is a fascinating book for all the wrong reasons. It was dated before it arrived at the printers, perhaps before it was even written; no doubt it will be studied by the historians and anthropologists of the future. Jean-Pierre is an artifact of an age that looks recent on paper but feels prehistoric in practice — the age of pantsuits, the word “empowerment,” the musical “Hamilton,” the cheap therapeutic entreaties to “work on yourself” and “lean in” to various corporate abysses. “Independent” is written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that “in this house, we believe kindness is everything,” which have been firmly planted, to no tangible electoral effect, since 2016.
Jean-Pierre is revealingly blinkered. She may represent the future of the Democratic Party, despite her notional disavowal of it. Like many younger Democrats, she came of age in the in-this-house era and made her name by embracing its symbolism and sensibility. Now, she has perhaps been advised by a team of pollsters and PR professionals to distance herself from a party that is rapidly hemorrhaging appeal and support. Yet, like her colleagues in the halls of Congress, she appears to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile party’s approval rating has cratered. The approach she opts for in this book — loudly declaring herself an independent in a futile effort to cleanse herself of the taint of her party, all while espousing the same old worldview in the same old tired tone — is one that will surely tempt many of her peers. The silver lining is that she has provided an object lesson in exactly what not to do. The question is whether the Democrats are capable of learning from her example.
Jean-Pierre’s central complaint boils down, more or less, to a vague sense of personal grievance. The Democrats were mean to Biden, her boss; they were mean to her personally, as she outlines in a lengthy diatribe against fellow staffers who leaked unflattering information about her to Politico; and they were mean to Harris, whom they refused to anoint as the nominee without a fight. Jean-Pierre sums up her complaints when she writes that she’s “exasperated with the shady way Democrats do business” — but not, we may presume, with the business itself.
Indeed, at no point in “Independent” does she articulate a serious critique of Democratic policies. Instead, in an unsubtle attempt to elevate her gripes to the status of more principled objections, she peppers the book with platitudes about the need to “tap into out of the box thinking” and reject “an out-of-touch leadership working from an outdated playbook.” It is hard to take these exhortations seriously when Jean-Pierre’s own thinking remains so decidedly in the box, and when her version of in-touch leadership is an 80-something darling of the establishment who can’t make it through a debate after 9 p.m.
Jean-Pierre’s true concern, her only real subject, is the Democrats’ lack of decorum. Instead of endeavoring to convince us that Harris was the best presidential candidate because of her platform or her popularity, Jean-Pierre gestures meekly at demographics and invokes tired dynastic norms. Harris was Biden’s “logical successor”; she was “clearly next in line”; and “bypassing [her] would have been disrespectful to Black women overall.” Never mind the rather central question of whether she was actually electable. “The Democratic Party, my party, didn’t know how to win,” Jean-Pierre laments — just pages after confessing: “I never really believed Harris could win. I’d been in the body of a Black woman all my life.” I wish I were more surprised to learn that a Biden administration insider strongly supported a candidate she didn’t believe could win, in keeping with the Democrats’ favored tactic of prioritizing politesse over victory.
And what, by the way, did Harris propose to do? What was her case for her candidacy, beyond not being Donald Trump? Jean-Pierre says shockingly little about the vice president’s accomplishments, noting only that Harris, as California’s attorney general, “created a program that dramatically shrank recidivism among first-time, non-violent offenders” and, as a U.S. senator, “took apart Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr” during hearings in 2019.
Another reason “Independent” is a relic is that it insists racial representation is an adequate substitute for anti-racist policy. Harris was “owed” the nomination simply because of her racial identity; Biden “showed his respect for Black women by heeding our calls to pick Harris as his vice president” and appointing Black judges. Yet there is no discussion of whether his appointees’ decisions helped or hurt Black communities. The fact of Harris’s race is presumed throughout to be the whole picture, and any analysis of her political commitments is pushed out of the frame.
If politics requires contestation, “Independent” is a determinedly apolitical book. Jean-Pierre’s work as White House press secretary taught her perhaps too well how to deflect messy but necessary debates. She regularly casts around to find technical grounds for ruling out heated conversations: Arguing against an open convention and the democratic deliberation it would have entailed, she points to the precedent that vice presidents have always run when their presidents decline to pursue a second term; in an effort to forestall debate over a politician’s record and vision, she appeals to the candidate’s race.
For her, becoming an independent seems to be less of a strategy than a style. “Independent” is a primer in the rhetorical tactics that have served Democrats so poorly of late, full of squishy and congratulatory therapy-speak. Jean-Pierre reports that she “protected [her] peace” by tuning out much of the 2024 Democratic convention — not a comforting admission from a public official tasked with listening to the citizenry. She praises Harris for instructing her to “take time to focus on you,” advice she has apparently been taking ever since.
Ultimately, she tells her fellow independents, “we’re leaning into our own truth.” Worse, she assures them, “it’s also about self-care.” She could often be mistaken for a motivational instructor in a Soul Cycle class: “I ask you to try, to flex your individuality like a muscle, standing firm in your purpose, holding fast when others push you to just go along.” It is incredible — and emblematic of the Democrats’ total aesthetic and intellectual driftlessness — that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium.
And yet this thin style is all she has. Jean-Pierre certainly does not have a theory of what independents can achieve at the ballot box or on the ground. She muses vaguely that Black women should threaten to vote against the Democratic Party so that it no longer takes their support for granted, but she renders her own threat hollow when she counsels readers to vote for Democratic candidates anyway.
And even if Black women did find themselves in a position to pressure the Democrats to adopt their preferred policies, what policies would those be? The point of accumulating power is to enact a vision, but when the time comes to present one, Jean-Pierre’s words are remarkably wispy. She favors the resuscitation of “a national community rooted in empathy” and promises, vaguely, that “empathy, when put into action, can be powerful enough to beat back exploitative policies and cruel agendas.” Whenever she has a chance to endorse a substantive view, she punts. “Ultimately what each of us needs to do is to think critically for ourselves,” she limply counsels.
“Thinking critically for ourselves” is well and good, but it generally involves coming to actual conclusions. At one point, Jean-Pierre reflects, “It’s not about whether you’re at one extreme of the party or squarely in the middle.” But if it’s not about that — if it’s not about where exactly your beliefs, convictions and commitment lie — then what in the world is it about?
Independent
A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines
In her new book, Biden’s former press secretary lets Democrats have it
Summarize
Karine Jean-Pierre’s memoir offers a critique of Biden and the Democrats that is outdated, impractical and driven more by personal grievance than policy.
Becca RothfeldOctober 22, 2025
Imagine parting ways with the Democratic Party not because of its unwavering support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he violated international law and waged a bloody campaign against civilians in Gaza; not because of its humiliating failure to mount meaningful opposition to the Trump administration’s assault on just about everything of value in the country; not because it continues to run candidates in their 70s and 80s, one of whom opted to die in office at 90 rather than cede her seat to someone younger; not because of its inability to expand access to health care, or protect immigrants, or tax the wealthy, or really get anything done at all; not because of its politely noncommittal affect and rhetoric of facile uplift, or its members’ tendency to address the public as if they are delivering the keynote at a corporate retreat; not because the Democrats have no political vision, something of a liability for a political party; but rather because of the single sensible — if very belated — thing they have done in recent memory, which was to usher a doddering Joe Biden out of the 2024 presidential race.
These contortions are hard to imagine from anyone but the most devoted apparatchik, which is exactly what Karine Jean-Pierre is. A lifelong Democratic operative who most recently served as President Biden’s press secretary, Jean-Pierre is still smarting from the perceived wounds the administration suffered at the hands of its treacherous party. In her new book, “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,” she recalls, “I watched Democratic leadership abandon, and in the end betray, a man who’d led our country through a pandemic and a time of historic political turmoil.” Worse, some party leaders had the audacity to question whether Vice President Kamala Harris ought to be Biden’s preordained successor. Calls for an open primary were “an insult to Harris,” Jean-Pierre exclaims — never mind whether the vice president’s coronation was an insult to voters, who might have preferred to be consulted.
Unsurprisingly, “Independent” is a fascinating book for all the wrong reasons. It was dated before it arrived at the printers, perhaps before it was even written; no doubt it will be studied by the historians and anthropologists of the future. Jean-Pierre is an artifact of an age that looks recent on paper but feels prehistoric in practice — the age of pantsuits, the word “empowerment,” the musical “Hamilton,” the cheap therapeutic entreaties to “work on yourself” and “lean in” to various corporate abysses. “Independent” is written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that “in this house, we believe kindness is everything,” which have been firmly planted, to no tangible electoral effect, since 2016.
Jean-Pierre is revealingly blinkered. She may represent the future of the Democratic Party, despite her notional disavowal of it. Like many younger Democrats, she came of age in the in-this-house era and made her name by embracing its symbolism and sensibility. Now, she has perhaps been advised by a team of pollsters and PR professionals to distance herself from a party that is rapidly hemorrhaging appeal and support. Yet, like her colleagues in the halls of Congress, she appears to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile party’s approval rating has cratered. The approach she opts for in this book — loudly declaring herself an independent in a futile effort to cleanse herself of the taint of her party, all while espousing the same old worldview in the same old tired tone — is one that will surely tempt many of her peers. The silver lining is that she has provided an object lesson in exactly what not to do. The question is whether the Democrats are capable of learning from her example.
Jean-Pierre’s central complaint boils down, more or less, to a vague sense of personal grievance. The Democrats were mean to Biden, her boss; they were mean to her personally, as she outlines in a lengthy diatribe against fellow staffers who leaked unflattering information about her to Politico; and they were mean to Harris, whom they refused to anoint as the nominee without a fight. Jean-Pierre sums up her complaints when she writes that she’s “exasperated with the shady way Democrats do business” — but not, we may presume, with the business itself.
Indeed, at no point in “Independent” does she articulate a serious critique of Democratic policies. Instead, in an unsubtle attempt to elevate her gripes to the status of more principled objections, she peppers the book with platitudes about the need to “tap into out of the box thinking” and reject “an out-of-touch leadership working from an outdated playbook.” It is hard to take these exhortations seriously when Jean-Pierre’s own thinking remains so decidedly in the box, and when her version of in-touch leadership is an 80-something darling of the establishment who can’t make it through a debate after 9 p.m.
Jean-Pierre’s true concern, her only real subject, is the Democrats’ lack of decorum. Instead of endeavoring to convince us that Harris was the best presidential candidate because of her platform or her popularity, Jean-Pierre gestures meekly at demographics and invokes tired dynastic norms. Harris was Biden’s “logical successor”; she was “clearly next in line”; and “bypassing [her] would have been disrespectful to Black women overall.” Never mind the rather central question of whether she was actually electable. “The Democratic Party, my party, didn’t know how to win,” Jean-Pierre laments — just pages after confessing: “I never really believed Harris could win. I’d been in the body of a Black woman all my life.” I wish I were more surprised to learn that a Biden administration insider strongly supported a candidate she didn’t believe could win, in keeping with the Democrats’ favored tactic of prioritizing politesse over victory.
And what, by the way, did Harris propose to do? What was her case for her candidacy, beyond not being Donald Trump? Jean-Pierre says shockingly little about the vice president’s accomplishments, noting only that Harris, as California’s attorney general, “created a program that dramatically shrank recidivism among first-time, non-violent offenders” and, as a U.S. senator, “took apart Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr” during hearings in 2019.
Another reason “Independent” is a relic is that it insists racial representation is an adequate substitute for anti-racist policy. Harris was “owed” the nomination simply because of her racial identity; Biden “showed his respect for Black women by heeding our calls to pick Harris as his vice president” and appointing Black judges. Yet there is no discussion of whether his appointees’ decisions helped or hurt Black communities. The fact of Harris’s race is presumed throughout to be the whole picture, and any analysis of her political commitments is pushed out of the frame.
If politics requires contestation, “Independent” is a determinedly apolitical book. Jean-Pierre’s work as White House press secretary taught her perhaps too well how to deflect messy but necessary debates. She regularly casts around to find technical grounds for ruling out heated conversations: Arguing against an open convention and the democratic deliberation it would have entailed, she points to the precedent that vice presidents have always run when their presidents decline to pursue a second term; in an effort to forestall debate over a politician’s record and vision, she appeals to the candidate’s race.
For her, becoming an independent seems to be less of a strategy than a style. “Independent” is a primer in the rhetorical tactics that have served Democrats so poorly of late, full of squishy and congratulatory therapy-speak. Jean-Pierre reports that she “protected [her] peace” by tuning out much of the 2024 Democratic convention — not a comforting admission from a public official tasked with listening to the citizenry. She praises Harris for instructing her to “take time to focus on you,” advice she has apparently been taking ever since.
Ultimately, she tells her fellow independents, “we’re leaning into our own truth.” Worse, she assures them, “it’s also about self-care.” She could often be mistaken for a motivational instructor in a Soul Cycle class: “I ask you to try, to flex your individuality like a muscle, standing firm in your purpose, holding fast when others push you to just go along.” It is incredible — and emblematic of the Democrats’ total aesthetic and intellectual driftlessness — that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium.
And yet this thin style is all she has. Jean-Pierre certainly does not have a theory of what independents can achieve at the ballot box or on the ground. She muses vaguely that Black women should threaten to vote against the Democratic Party so that it no longer takes their support for granted, but she renders her own threat hollow when she counsels readers to vote for Democratic candidates anyway.
And even if Black women did find themselves in a position to pressure the Democrats to adopt their preferred policies, what policies would those be? The point of accumulating power is to enact a vision, but when the time comes to present one, Jean-Pierre’s words are remarkably wispy. She favors the resuscitation of “a national community rooted in empathy” and promises, vaguely, that “empathy, when put into action, can be powerful enough to beat back exploitative policies and cruel agendas.” Whenever she has a chance to endorse a substantive view, she punts. “Ultimately what each of us needs to do is to think critically for ourselves,” she limply counsels.
“Thinking critically for ourselves” is well and good, but it generally involves coming to actual conclusions. At one point, Jean-Pierre reflects, “It’s not about whether you’re at one extreme of the party or squarely in the middle.” But if it’s not about that — if it’s not about where exactly your beliefs, convictions and commitment lie — then what in the world is it about?
Independent
A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines
"the age of pantsuits" 
I fukking knew it 
nypost.com
Obama’s reaction to Nancy Pelosi’s ‘surprise’ endorsement of Kamala Harris revealed
Summarize
By
Published Oct. 27, 2025, 7:48 p.m. ET
Former President Barack Obama was “not happy” with Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) quick endorsement of then-Vice President Kamala Harris — and he let it be known in a phone call with the former House speaker, according to a new book.
Pelosi described Harris as “brilliantly astute” and expressed “full confidence” that the ex-California senator could defeat President Trump in her endorsement statement, which came less than 24 hours after Joe Biden ended his 2024 re-election bid.
Obama, who preferred to let “a process” determine Trump’s Democratic Party opponent, called Pelosi shortly after her endorsement to vent his frustration — having thought they were on the same page, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl wrote in “Retribution,” out Tuesday.
“The Obamas were not happy,” a Pelosi confidant told Karl, according to an excerpt obtained by the Daily Mail.
“This person summed up Obama’s message to Pelosi as, essentially, ‘What the f–k did you just do?’”
Former President Barack Obama moderates a discussion at the 2024 Democracy Forum.3
Obama’s reaction to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kamala Harris is detailed in ABC journalist Jonathan Karl’s upcoming book, “Retribution.” Getty Images
Explore More
It has been widely reported that the 44th president wanted an open convention to determine the party’s nominee, rather than anointing Harris after Biden’s shocking drop-out.
Obama reportedly had serious concerns about Harris’ competence and her ability to beat Trump in the general election.
“That train has left the station,” Pelosi reportedly told Obama during their call, according to Karl, apparently referring to Biden’s quick endorsement of Harris after announcing his decision to end his campaign.
Karl wrote that Obama and Pelosi both “agreed Harris should not simply be handed the nomination unchallenged.”
“Therefore, Obama and Pelosi — arguably the two most influential figures in the Democratic Party — had privately agreed to abstain from making any endorsements,” the journalist claimed.
The pair had been in “regular communication” leading up to Biden’s July 21, 2024, withdrawal announcement, which is why Obama was so stunned by Pelosi’s decision to back Harris.
Kamala Harris smiles with hands clasped at a podium with two microphones.3
Harris was endorsed by Obama five days after Biden dropped out of the race — while Pelosi backed her less than 24 hours after former President Joe Biden withdrew. Tamara Beckwith/NY Post
Nancy Pelosi speaks at a podium with two American flags and a US House of Representatives flag behind her.3
Pelosi reportedly agreed with Obama that an open primary was needed once Biden bowed out. AP
A source close to Obama described the former president’s conversation with Pelosi as “’good-natured ribbing,” rather than heated, according to Karl.
“The former president wanted to know what had happened. Why had Pelosi issued a statement endorsing Harris so soon? Hadn’t he and Pelosi agreed days earlier that party leaders anointing the vice president as Biden’s replacement would be a mistake?” Karl writes.
However, the source close to Pelosi felt Obama sounded “genuinely irritated” on the call.
At least one Biden official believed that Obama, who waited five days after the then-81-year-old president dropped out to endorse Harris, didn’t think the former vice president could win.
“There’s only one Black Jesus,” the senior Biden adviser told Karl.
Like Obama, Pelosi’s husband was also surprised by the former House speaker’s decision.
“Kamala?” Paul Pelosi asked his wife, according to Karl.
To which Nancy Pelosi shot back: “Don’t start with me.”
In “Retribution,” Karl notes that with big-name Democrats, such as the Clintons, and potential challengers, like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, quickly endorsing Harris, Pelosi “had no choice.”
“No other candidates had stepped forward — Kamala Harris was it. The only thing Pelosi could do was try to help her win the election,” he wrote.
Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.
Obama’s reaction to Nancy Pelosi’s ‘surprise’ endorsement of Kamala Harris revealed: ‘What the f–k did you just do?’
Obama, who preferred to let “a process” determine Trump’s Democratic Party opponent, called Pelosi shortly after her endorsement to vent his frustration – having thought they were on the same page.…
nypost.com
Obama’s reaction to Nancy Pelosi’s ‘surprise’ endorsement of Kamala Harris revealed
Summarize
By
Published Oct. 27, 2025, 7:48 p.m. ET
Former President Barack Obama was “not happy” with Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) quick endorsement of then-Vice President Kamala Harris — and he let it be known in a phone call with the former House speaker, according to a new book.
Pelosi described Harris as “brilliantly astute” and expressed “full confidence” that the ex-California senator could defeat President Trump in her endorsement statement, which came less than 24 hours after Joe Biden ended his 2024 re-election bid.
Obama, who preferred to let “a process” determine Trump’s Democratic Party opponent, called Pelosi shortly after her endorsement to vent his frustration — having thought they were on the same page, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl wrote in “Retribution,” out Tuesday.
“The Obamas were not happy,” a Pelosi confidant told Karl, according to an excerpt obtained by the Daily Mail.
“This person summed up Obama’s message to Pelosi as, essentially, ‘What the f–k did you just do?’”
Former President Barack Obama moderates a discussion at the 2024 Democracy Forum.3
Obama’s reaction to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kamala Harris is detailed in ABC journalist Jonathan Karl’s upcoming book, “Retribution.” Getty Images
Explore More
It has been widely reported that the 44th president wanted an open convention to determine the party’s nominee, rather than anointing Harris after Biden’s shocking drop-out.
Obama reportedly had serious concerns about Harris’ competence and her ability to beat Trump in the general election.
“That train has left the station,” Pelosi reportedly told Obama during their call, according to Karl, apparently referring to Biden’s quick endorsement of Harris after announcing his decision to end his campaign.
Karl wrote that Obama and Pelosi both “agreed Harris should not simply be handed the nomination unchallenged.”
“Therefore, Obama and Pelosi — arguably the two most influential figures in the Democratic Party — had privately agreed to abstain from making any endorsements,” the journalist claimed.
The pair had been in “regular communication” leading up to Biden’s July 21, 2024, withdrawal announcement, which is why Obama was so stunned by Pelosi’s decision to back Harris.
Kamala Harris smiles with hands clasped at a podium with two microphones.3
Harris was endorsed by Obama five days after Biden dropped out of the race — while Pelosi backed her less than 24 hours after former President Joe Biden withdrew. Tamara Beckwith/NY Post
Nancy Pelosi speaks at a podium with two American flags and a US House of Representatives flag behind her.3
Pelosi reportedly agreed with Obama that an open primary was needed once Biden bowed out. AP
A source close to Obama described the former president’s conversation with Pelosi as “’good-natured ribbing,” rather than heated, according to Karl.
“The former president wanted to know what had happened. Why had Pelosi issued a statement endorsing Harris so soon? Hadn’t he and Pelosi agreed days earlier that party leaders anointing the vice president as Biden’s replacement would be a mistake?” Karl writes.
However, the source close to Pelosi felt Obama sounded “genuinely irritated” on the call.
At least one Biden official believed that Obama, who waited five days after the then-81-year-old president dropped out to endorse Harris, didn’t think the former vice president could win.
“There’s only one Black Jesus,” the senior Biden adviser told Karl.
Like Obama, Pelosi’s husband was also surprised by the former House speaker’s decision.
“Kamala?” Paul Pelosi asked his wife, according to Karl.
To which Nancy Pelosi shot back: “Don’t start with me.”
In “Retribution,” Karl notes that with big-name Democrats, such as the Clintons, and potential challengers, like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, quickly endorsing Harris, Pelosi “had no choice.”
“No other candidates had stepped forward — Kamala Harris was it. The only thing Pelosi could do was try to help her win the election,” he wrote.
Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.
the cac mamba
Veteran
the cac mamba
Veteran
this is bullshyt, Newsom was dying to step in. they should have picked him
the idea that he would have turned it down is nonsense. it's incredibly difficult and expensive to win a major party nomination, and Newsom had/has no post-2024 senate seat he's looking at. Newsom was not turning down a 50/50 shot at being president of the united states
They all were.this is bullshyt, Newsom was dying to step in. they should have picked him
the idea that he would have turned it down is nonsense. it's incredibly difficult and expensive to win a major party nomination, and Newsom had/has no post-2024 senate seat he's looking at. Newsom was not turning down a 50/50 shot at being president of the united states