I was just joking. It seems like there’s a “Newsome vetoes x” post each day and I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason but the headlines are always like “Newsome vetoes pizza party and announces pop quiz.”
He has some kind of strategist on his payroll (I would imagine) that thinks he can win that nebulous “centrist” by not being too progressive. Too bad they don’t exist, and he’s only succeeding in alienating the largest voting bloc of Millennials and Gen Z.
He’s justified some of these latest vetos by saying, “We already have a law that covers that.” So what? Redundancy is bad now? I genuinely don’t understand the strategy here, and I don’t think his strategist has a pulse on the demographics, either.
He doesn’t need to court democrats. They vote for whoever they’re told to vote for.
His strategy is to assure the donor class that he won’t do too much for regular people so that they won’t withhold their money when they fund both candidates.
I was just joking. It seems like there’s a “Newsome vetoes x” post each day and I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason but the headlines are always like “Newsome vetoes pizza party and announces pop quiz.”
He has some kind of strategist on his payroll (I would imagine) that thinks he can win that nebulous “centrist” by not being too progressive. Too bad they don’t exist, and he’s only succeeding in alienating the largest voting bloc of Millennials and Gen Z.
He’s justified some of these latest vetos by saying, “We already have a law that covers that.” So what? Redundancy is bad now? I genuinely don’t understand the strategy here, and I don’t think his strategist has a pulse on the demographics, either.
He doesn’t need to court democrats. They vote for whoever they’re told to vote for.
His strategy is to assure the donor class that he won’t do too much for regular people so that they won’t withhold their money when they fund both candidates.
I’m sad that this makes some sense.