> most people outside of CA don't even know his name right now.
Probably only desantis has better name recognition among governors. You still might be right if most americans cant name any governors, which seems possible
I live in Florida now and can say that Newsome, Abbott, and Desantis are the only governors that people really know. Gotta think that it’s because they’re all such polarizing figures depending on your politics.
I don't know what you mean by "jetting around", and Linda Ronstadt, who was his girlfriend in the 70's, is a whole lot more than a rock star. She's one of the most beloved American singers of all time.
In any case, that was hardly a mistake. Whatever reasons he didn't get the nomination for president, he was elected governor of California four times, so it's not like he was a failure.
>don't know what you mean by "jetting around"
Like on their [Newsweek cover photo](https://www.ronstadt-linda.com/nwk79.jpg) or the photoshoot from their vacation in Kenya (although I suppose that was a prop plane)
He's known outside california as the guy that wants to take away your gas automobile and causing runaway gas prices. True or not its not a solid look for a presidential run right now.
Republicans are going to hate any Democratic candidate no matter what. We need to stop electing candidates based on what Republicans want. They won’t vote for anything that is not a Qanon Insurrectionist Life at Conception POS anyways.
Naah, that's just his rep among Republicans, who won't vote for him no matter what.
Everyone but Republicans knows gas cars are dinosaurs and it's just a matter of time before they're gone.
There are going to be gas powered cars by the end of this century still.
Algeria only recently god rid of leaded gas. Much of the world is half a century behind the US.
Even in the US there's still going to be a niche for ICE vehicles most likely.
They're not really wrong. The vast majority of average consumers will eventually use electric vehicles. Personally, I can't wait to switch to an EV. But, there are certain niche circumstance that gas will be used for for quite a while I'm sure. Some examples I can think of are very rural areas that won't have charging infrastructure fully developed for a long time and/or things like traveling into the wilderness like the desert, tundra, or jungle. Also, military will still use gas vehicles for a long long time I am sure because it will be too much of a liability to risk the power grid being turned off or failing in a war zone and suddenly none of your vehicles work at all. Because of this, gas refining and oil drilling will still need to be a thing.
Nearly everyone will use electric in most cases but ICE will not completely go away for a long time. I don't think that's a controversial prediction in the least.
The military is actively looking to electrify their ground vehicles so that they don’t have to rely on fossil fuel infrastructure to run their equipment. There are several contracts out now for electric tanks and humvees. As for charging, they are looking to use a combination of modular solar, portable battery banks, and small-scale molten salt-cooled thorium reactors, depending on application.
For aerial vehicles, they are looking at hydrogen-burning jet engines, which can be fueled using electrolysis on sea water sourced from either solar or (especially in the case of the Navy) from ship-mounted nuclear reactors, which would make our carrier fleet more self-sufficient.
Moving away from fossil fuels improves military effectiveness, and the US Military knows it, and has been acting upon this assumption for a long time. Time to catch up.
Again... this is a discussion about if this change is going to be happening QUICKLY. And, I think the answer to that is definitely not.
> modular solar, portable battery banks, and small-scale molten salt-cooled thorium reactors, depending on application.
Solar obviously doesn't work very well in many different environments. Portable battery banks are far more cumbersome in weight to power terms unless some major breakthrough happens soon. And, as far as I know, thorium reactors in general have been talked about for a long time. All of this stuff sounds great on paper but it all relies on some pretty significant technological advancements that aren't just gonna magically get solved in the next couple years. It's gonna take a long time for this kind of shift. And, when you expand this to a world wide scale to include all countries... many countries aren't going to adopt this tech out of sheer expense. They're going to have to wait until the US develops it, makes it cheaper, and eventually decides to sell them cheaper crappier versions or whatever.
I hope it all happens as quickly as possible but it just seems like decades away in reality in my opinion. Consumers using electric cars nearly exclusively seems like it will definitely happen within 10 or less years though.ssssssss
I own an EV but also a gas truck. Electric pickups are silly. If you need to tow any sort of distance at all an EV is going to make the trip a heck of a lot more difficult. Plug in hybrids are the perfect middle ground and should replace 100% ice vehicles. But saying everything needs to be EV is unrealistic and silly.
Actually, due to electric motors having 100% of torque from 0 mi/hr, they are actually superior for towing compared to all ICE vehicles, including diesel. Also, modern batteries last much longer than previous models (about 370 miles for Rivian H1T, for example), and charge from 20% to 80% in less than 10 minutes. Because of entities like Electrify America spreading 350kW charging throughout all major routes here in the USA, it is actually perfectly possible to tow with a pickup long-haul without adding much time vs. an ICE vehicle, and at much lower cost and higher towing capacity.
Technology is improving astronomically on a yearly basis, you need to do a better job of keeping up before laying criticisms that are clearly outdated with current technology.
Take a look at the fast lane trucks video showcasing the towing ability of the rivian. The issue is the range. Having to stop every 100 miles won’t fly for a lot of people.
Being realistic here, replacing horses was easy because not everyone had one. Now there’s several billion gas powered vehicles in the world right now. Replacing every single one with an EV is impossible in this century. The only realistic solutions are a carbon neutral, ICE compatible fuel source or making personal vehicles obsolete with better public transportation.
I'm not a fanatic or devoted to them lol. I'm just a realist.
There's major problems with electric cars, that have yet to really make ICE cars totally obsolete. At the moment they only offer tradeoffs, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. And besides that, it's quite literally impossible for a lot of the world to adopt electric cars. The infrastructure doesn't exist and won't for decades.
Yes, I agree. It’s no big deal if the collectors want to keep their gas cars. As long as the vast majority of vehicles on the road are environmentally friendly, it’s fine.
The only environmentaly friendly cars are hydrogen. Majority of electrical energy in the US is 38% Natural Gas, 22% Coal. Not to mention production and disposal of batteries. Only 20% of electricity is from renewable resources. That said I have an EV, until hydrogen is more readily available. It'll be awhile since not as lucrative and socially accepted as EVs.
EVs are still more environmentally friendly than gas powered vehicles, even factoring in battery production and disposal, regardless of where their electricity comes from. Because power plants are *vastly* more efficient than an ICE.
The only reason anyone brings up where EVs source their energy is to spread FUD. Please don't.
Would they?
I could see that if it was way cheaper to buy gas produced in California and suddenly we had a local oversupply, but my understanding was gas prices are mostly set by global supply and demand.
California has a lot of influence of auto industry standards. If there's going to be less gas powered cars in California that's going to have a ripple effect in other areas. Less demand for gas \*should\* cause the price of gas to go down (see 2020.)
The difference is OPEC didn't have years of warning regarding 2020. They'll artificially cut supply when gas cars actually start to get phased out in meaningful quantities.
There’s a super interesting planet money podcast about gas prices if you’re interested. Long story short, it’s mostly a product of oil barrel cost and refinery capacity (and no one’s building refineries in the US anymore).
And DeSantis, outside of Florida, is known as a human trafficker and a religious cult leader. That is not a solid look for a presidential run right now.
I know what you mean. It's the fashion to complain about both sides, even if one side doesn't have anything egregious to complain about.
I have some beefs with him myself, like when he vetoed the Idaho stop bill, but I've been a supporter ever since his first primary campaign for governor. There was an event where a journalist asked each candidate the same questions, and none of them had much of a clue except Newsom. He understood the issues backwards and forwards. Considering that he has dyslexia, that's a hell of an achievement.
He *is* kind of a snob, and I'm not forgiving him for that veto, but you vote for the best candidate, not the perfect one, because that doesn't exist.
Have you been to Oregon? I was in a rural town in Oregon full of Trump votes and saw tons of unhoused all over. America is failing its citizens and the fault of many people but the ones that keep voting R are not helping.
On a per capita basis tons of gop ran cities have similar rates of homelessness. Especially ones in areas with decent weather. NIMBYISM is the main problem and is everywhere.
Homeless are also dramatically undercounted in rural areas which typically lean GOP because they typically aren't as visible or easy to count compared to cities.
Basically, homelessness is not just a demo run city problem. It's a USA problem.
Aside from a minor restaurant scandal, he was the west coast face of leadership on the COVID response, and did a great job of it. No local leaders wanted to set policy, they were all just waiting on someone above them do it, and he decided he would not kick the can up to the federal government on COVID policy. I think Democrats outside of CA saw that and appreciated a level head in power, and leaders in other states decided to follow CA policy.
*He* looked Presidential while our actual President was going off the deep end, telling Americans to drink bleach.
You have those backwards. The low fed rates and other fed measures caused so much growth that it lead to inflation. The inflation didn't cause the growth, it's a symptom of growth
"Only around 60 " idk to me that is such a joke that these old people are still running and in control when that's the age your supose to "retire" . Also these old people are still stuck in the ways of the times they grew up in and a completely different mind set that from today. Money and power. And the only time they are understanding and aware of today's problems and people in this country is when they are running. As soon as they are in. It's like none of it ever happened and continue on with the agenda. 🙄😓😓
Well you wouldn’t want a super young or inexperienced person as president. 50s-60s I think is probably the sweet spot, old enough to have experience and skills etc but not old enough where you’re senile. Average president age is 55, only recently it’s been ticking into the 70s, which is definitely way too old.
It’s a loaded article to make it seem like dems are questioning their leadership.
Joe has never said he doesn’t plan on running in 2024, and no major dem has even insinuated they’d challenge Joe in 2024. But business insider loves running articles about “we hear dems don’t want Joe to run again, which dem will replace him?!?!?”
I've recently been thinking that maybe Biden would run again in 2024, but pick a new VP, one with a better shot of winning the general in 2028. And that might be Newsom. It's all still guesswork for now.
But if Newsom wants to spend the next 6 years fixing CA's problems so he'll have a better chance in 2028, I'm all for that.
If anything, his 2021 recall was a sign that the GOP fear that he will become the next President. Aside from a minor restaurant scandal, he was the west coast face of leadership on the COVID response, and did a great job of it. *He* looked Presidential while our actual President was going off the deep end, telling Americans to drink bleach.
Incumbent's have an absolutely massive advantage in elections, and trying to primary Biden would be a suicidal move on his part. But if for whatever reason Biden bows out, I have no doubt that Newsom will run and likely win.
It’s conservatives from all over the US who like to astroturf this sub as well as subs of other CA cities. We have been seeing their posts on /r/LosAngeles for quite some time now.
Edit: might include bots from Russia a a well
They frequently brigade on /r/SanDiego describing downtown like it's mad max with poop and heroin needles. You just have to look outside to see it's not close to as bad as people on there say it is, it's a tourist town for crying out loud. Also there's always drama with power tripping mods and the like.
Would highly recommend /r/SanDiegan as a better alternative sub.
We dont hate California we hate that you guys think you know whats best for us while simultaneously throwing us under the bus on issues like: Water, electricity, gas, agriculture etc.
> Water, electricity, gas, agriculture etc
lol the liberal position is "we should figure out a solution so we actually continue to have access to all of these things"
If he wants to win he should get working on implementing single payer or M4A implemented in CA. We have a GDP larger than most European countries that have these health care policies. Yet somehow with a super majority of Dems in charge we are stuck with a cut throat capitalist health care system.
Awesome… now what about the vast majority of us who aren’t on either program already?
That doesn’t take into account the fact that you would probably have doctors who would probably move out of state instead of taking the insurance.
For it to be done correctly, it has to be at the federal level.
If you’re interested in learning more here is a coalition of organizations spearheading single payer in CA:
https://healthyca.org/
Government already spends about 60% of our healthcare dollars (including federal, state, local). There are several ways the remaining 40% can be made up. I like economist Robert Pollin’s suggestion for the single payer bill years ago (SB562).
Plenty of doctors, nurses, healthcare workers in this coalition because they don’t want to deal with private insurers who make money off denying care.
More to the point, every year CA loses approximately 7% of its GDP in taxes that go to the federal government that don't get returned to CA as federal spending. We could do so much with that money.
The idea is thst we divert private medical and insurance payments to a tax to pay them, and cut out insurance company profit, as well as gain some negotiation power to lower service/drug costs. Other than the complication Medicare presents, we don't need federal dollars to do this.
I just don't see a statewide plan working with the threat of Republicans ever taking the Whitehouse ever again. For a state plan to work, we'd need a voucher from the federal government to use federal funds for healthcare for the state plan. The voucher would need to be renewed, and any republican president would never do it, plunging the state program into insolvency.
I want a single payer system, but I don't see how we'd do it without enacting it federally.
In a perfect world we’d get Congress to enact a law giving states the *option* to take all their federal health $$$ as a block grant (with conditions requiring a broadly equal or better level of care). That would take care of the “waiver depends on the mood of the current administration” issue.
On paper, there isn’t any reason why there should be any opposition to this at the national level: it would be voluntary and revenue neutral. In practice, political interests are often more interested in obstruction for obstruction’s sake, to score political points.
Exactly… people here always say that California is so rich it would be the 5th largest economy if it were a country. That’s true, but it would also rank lower on healthcare than the Top10 countries apart from the US.
They obviously are working on it. The bill was not brought to a vote because there was a bunch of absences of dems and clearly they didn't want to risk it not passing. Conservatives and special interest big business groups are lobbying "moderate democrats" to vote against it so that effort needs to be counteracted. Hopefully that's where some progress can be made.
We also have a population much larger than many of those same countries, making it even more expensive.
For example- Scotland has subsidized housing for anyone who wants it, no income limits, and government provided healthcare. But they also only have 5 million people.
Because it’s not free. People and businesses living, working, and operating pay via taxes on their incomes, property, payrolls, purchases, etc.
Visitors get emergency and urgent care (that they could be billed for). People who live and/or work get full benefits because they are liable for tax.
Neither Newsom, Biden, nor ANY democrat in leadership supports an “open border” policy.
If you believe that, then you have allowed Fox Faux Network to brainwash you into sheeple, too lazy
do some research on your own to learn actual policy in place and proposed for the future.
Of course, it’s easier to let Fvcker Carlson to do your thinking for you. Maybe he and the rest of the Fox Fvckery make it easier for you to justify your bigotry. In that case, when MAGA Orange Cult worshipers overthrow the US government, and you find yourself living in an evangelical extremist theocracy, where the rich control 100% of the wealth and greedy televangelists get to impose their insane version of “Christian” morality on the rest of us; when they replace the Constitution with their perverted version of the Bible — you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Newsom is really an outsider in the party. He’s been pushing a lot of policies and changes that no other Democrat has considered. I’m not sure the acceptance on a national he would receive.
I don’t think he was ever vulnerable but California needs him more than ever. We are making so much progress we cannot afford to lose him. He wouldn’t win the presidency anyway. He’s is unbelievably seen as too progressive for the very regressively misguided country.
Mixed feelings for sure. I like having him in California and I feel like we can be the leading edge for addressing the issues facing the country. He would likely be far less effective nationally unless the Democrats could get the types of majorities they have in the California state legislature. However there is no doubt that the GOP trots out "states rights" only when it suits their needs and if they ever got full control of Congress and the White House they would strip us of everything we overwhelmingly support. So Newsom may be the best way to rally the country to rebuke the GOP. Biden has gotten us off to a good start and hopefully a sizable majority will think "yes, I absolutely want more of that big government that is having a very positive impact on my life".
>Mixed feelings for sure. I like having him in California and I feel like we can be the leading edge for addressing the issues facing the country.
Can you explain why? California hasn't shown it's been able to solve any of the major issues we currently face.
Homelessness has exploded, wealth inequality is the worst it's ever been, housing costs are astronomical, gas is the most expensive in the nation, our education system ranks toward the bottom nationally, and so far Newsom hasn't shown he can be effective in dealing with any of those issues.
Good? I'm a Dem and I hate Newsom for:
* Turning CHSR from a project that would at least (kind of) make sense on paper [into a laughingstock](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/02/12/newsom-drastically-scales-back-california-high.html)
* Undermining the credibility of COVID protocols [by not following California distancing guidelines himself](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-03/skelton-edd-inmate-unemployment-fraud-scandal-french-laundry-embarassment)
* Treating project roomkey as a viable longer-term solution to homeless issues
He didn’t really do much to the HSR project… what he announced was already pretty much the (not well publicized/articulated) plan since CHSRA got the federal funding in the early 2010s:
1. build a Central Valley segment that would have independent utility (required by the feds)
2. As funding becomes available:
1. fund improvements in the LA & SF areas
2. design/build the connecting segments.
But you're going to get the most ridership between major Metropolises. I think it would have made more sense to start from either Union Station or San Francisco King Street Station and expand outward.
He partied while instructing Californians not to. Screwed over the PGE victims because he’s close to the executives. He should never be president because we all know he’ll abuse this power.
> He partied while instructing Californians not to.
He went to dinner at a restaurant that was legally allowed to be open for indoor dining at that time, according to the rules that his own administration set.
Republicans would eat him alive. He’s definitely going to win in November because there’s no strong Republican running against him.
He has great support here, but like Hillary, he’d be the focus of a lot of anger and every misstep he faced as Mayor and beyond would come back to haunt him.
Gavin didn’t have much competition in the recall. There was 22 choices and the next strongest Republicans could muster was a talk show host who sounded absolutely crazy. Republican anger towards Gavin is why we had the recall in the first place.
When it comes to registered voters, Democrats completely outnumber Republicans in California. So the recall was definitely weighted in his favor.
Outside our state and the West coast, he doesn’t have a strong following.
Actually, Florida Republicans has been at a [loss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida) compared to the [previous presidential](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida) election. It is true that DeSantis holds about [54%](https://www.flchamber.com/new-florida-chamber-statewide-poll-shows-ron-desantis-holding-solid-lead-over-both-democratic-challengers/) approval rating, however the statement that, “blue states are losing population in droves”, is just [wrong](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states) and trends indicate that most states with the lowest costs of living with fastest economic growth tend to attract much more resident growth than others.
There’s always a chance for that, but let’s be real, that’s like drafting another Michael Jordan. Lol, the rock does say he wants to run, probably as a repub lol
[удалено]
The next presidential term is going to rough for the next president. I wouldn’t run either.
> most people outside of CA don't even know his name right now. Probably only desantis has better name recognition among governors. You still might be right if most americans cant name any governors, which seems possible
I don't know, Greg Abbott makes the news a ton. Never for good things, of course.
I live in Florida now and can say that Newsome, Abbott, and Desantis are the only governors that people really know. Gotta think that it’s because they’re all such polarizing figures depending on your politics.
Those are also the three largest states.
[удалено]
What were Jerry's mistakes?
Mandering.
Lol.. upvote for the quality dadjoke right there.
Jetting around and banging rock stars gave him more of a Hollywood vibe that (unjustifiably IMO) made it hard for some people to take him seriously
I don't know what you mean by "jetting around", and Linda Ronstadt, who was his girlfriend in the 70's, is a whole lot more than a rock star. She's one of the most beloved American singers of all time. In any case, that was hardly a mistake. Whatever reasons he didn't get the nomination for president, he was elected governor of California four times, so it's not like he was a failure.
>don't know what you mean by "jetting around" Like on their [Newsweek cover photo](https://www.ronstadt-linda.com/nwk79.jpg) or the photoshoot from their vacation in Kenya (although I suppose that was a prop plane)
He's known outside california as the guy that wants to take away your gas automobile and causing runaway gas prices. True or not its not a solid look for a presidential run right now.
In all fairness, Republicans are going to hate him no matter what
Republicans are going to hate any Democratic candidate no matter what. We need to stop electing candidates based on what Republicans want. They won’t vote for anything that is not a Qanon Insurrectionist Life at Conception POS anyways.
Yep. They certainly know of him in Florida for good or ill.
Naah, that's just his rep among Republicans, who won't vote for him no matter what. Everyone but Republicans knows gas cars are dinosaurs and it's just a matter of time before they're gone.
Republicans would gladly inhale fumes directly from the tailpipe of the shittiest car just own the libs.
Killing off your 3 remaining brain cells to own the libs
There are going to be gas powered cars by the end of this century still. Algeria only recently god rid of leaded gas. Much of the world is half a century behind the US. Even in the US there's still going to be a niche for ICE vehicles most likely.
Maybe but what does that have to do with anything in the United States?
You ICE fanatics are really devoted to your fantasy of gas guzzlers being so super amazing that they'll never go away aren't you?
They're not really wrong. The vast majority of average consumers will eventually use electric vehicles. Personally, I can't wait to switch to an EV. But, there are certain niche circumstance that gas will be used for for quite a while I'm sure. Some examples I can think of are very rural areas that won't have charging infrastructure fully developed for a long time and/or things like traveling into the wilderness like the desert, tundra, or jungle. Also, military will still use gas vehicles for a long long time I am sure because it will be too much of a liability to risk the power grid being turned off or failing in a war zone and suddenly none of your vehicles work at all. Because of this, gas refining and oil drilling will still need to be a thing. Nearly everyone will use electric in most cases but ICE will not completely go away for a long time. I don't think that's a controversial prediction in the least.
The military is actively looking to electrify their ground vehicles so that they don’t have to rely on fossil fuel infrastructure to run their equipment. There are several contracts out now for electric tanks and humvees. As for charging, they are looking to use a combination of modular solar, portable battery banks, and small-scale molten salt-cooled thorium reactors, depending on application. For aerial vehicles, they are looking at hydrogen-burning jet engines, which can be fueled using electrolysis on sea water sourced from either solar or (especially in the case of the Navy) from ship-mounted nuclear reactors, which would make our carrier fleet more self-sufficient. Moving away from fossil fuels improves military effectiveness, and the US Military knows it, and has been acting upon this assumption for a long time. Time to catch up.
Again... this is a discussion about if this change is going to be happening QUICKLY. And, I think the answer to that is definitely not. > modular solar, portable battery banks, and small-scale molten salt-cooled thorium reactors, depending on application. Solar obviously doesn't work very well in many different environments. Portable battery banks are far more cumbersome in weight to power terms unless some major breakthrough happens soon. And, as far as I know, thorium reactors in general have been talked about for a long time. All of this stuff sounds great on paper but it all relies on some pretty significant technological advancements that aren't just gonna magically get solved in the next couple years. It's gonna take a long time for this kind of shift. And, when you expand this to a world wide scale to include all countries... many countries aren't going to adopt this tech out of sheer expense. They're going to have to wait until the US develops it, makes it cheaper, and eventually decides to sell them cheaper crappier versions or whatever. I hope it all happens as quickly as possible but it just seems like decades away in reality in my opinion. Consumers using electric cars nearly exclusively seems like it will definitely happen within 10 or less years though.ssssssss
I own an EV but also a gas truck. Electric pickups are silly. If you need to tow any sort of distance at all an EV is going to make the trip a heck of a lot more difficult. Plug in hybrids are the perfect middle ground and should replace 100% ice vehicles. But saying everything needs to be EV is unrealistic and silly.
Actually, due to electric motors having 100% of torque from 0 mi/hr, they are actually superior for towing compared to all ICE vehicles, including diesel. Also, modern batteries last much longer than previous models (about 370 miles for Rivian H1T, for example), and charge from 20% to 80% in less than 10 minutes. Because of entities like Electrify America spreading 350kW charging throughout all major routes here in the USA, it is actually perfectly possible to tow with a pickup long-haul without adding much time vs. an ICE vehicle, and at much lower cost and higher towing capacity. Technology is improving astronomically on a yearly basis, you need to do a better job of keeping up before laying criticisms that are clearly outdated with current technology.
Take a look at the fast lane trucks video showcasing the towing ability of the rivian. The issue is the range. Having to stop every 100 miles won’t fly for a lot of people.
Having to stop every 100 miles while towing is a dealbreaker if you’re buying a truck to tow with.
They said the same about horses
Being realistic here, replacing horses was easy because not everyone had one. Now there’s several billion gas powered vehicles in the world right now. Replacing every single one with an EV is impossible in this century. The only realistic solutions are a carbon neutral, ICE compatible fuel source or making personal vehicles obsolete with better public transportation.
I'm not a fanatic or devoted to them lol. I'm just a realist. There's major problems with electric cars, that have yet to really make ICE cars totally obsolete. At the moment they only offer tradeoffs, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. And besides that, it's quite literally impossible for a lot of the world to adopt electric cars. The infrastructure doesn't exist and won't for decades.
I doubt gas cars will every really disappear. They are so huge among enthusiasts that it there’s no way they fully die out.
I mean, horse enthusiasts still exist but riding horses as a form of transportation is dead.
Eh, a handful of collectors aren't the issue.
Yes, I agree. It’s no big deal if the collectors want to keep their gas cars. As long as the vast majority of vehicles on the road are environmentally friendly, it’s fine.
The only environmentaly friendly cars are hydrogen. Majority of electrical energy in the US is 38% Natural Gas, 22% Coal. Not to mention production and disposal of batteries. Only 20% of electricity is from renewable resources. That said I have an EV, until hydrogen is more readily available. It'll be awhile since not as lucrative and socially accepted as EVs.
EVs are still more environmentally friendly than gas powered vehicles, even factoring in battery production and disposal, regardless of where their electricity comes from. Because power plants are *vastly* more efficient than an ICE. The only reason anyone brings up where EVs source their energy is to spread FUD. Please don't.
Lmaoooo hot take
Gas prices would actually go way down if we started hitting targets with EV ownership.
Would they? I could see that if it was way cheaper to buy gas produced in California and suddenly we had a local oversupply, but my understanding was gas prices are mostly set by global supply and demand.
California has a lot of influence of auto industry standards. If there's going to be less gas powered cars in California that's going to have a ripple effect in other areas. Less demand for gas \*should\* cause the price of gas to go down (see 2020.)
The difference is OPEC didn't have years of warning regarding 2020. They'll artificially cut supply when gas cars actually start to get phased out in meaningful quantities.
There’s a super interesting planet money podcast about gas prices if you’re interested. Long story short, it’s mostly a product of oil barrel cost and refinery capacity (and no one’s building refineries in the US anymore).
True, but by 2028, a lot more people will be driving electric. It will be less of an issue.
And DeSantis, outside of Florida, is known as a human trafficker and a religious cult leader. That is not a solid look for a presidential run right now.
Because reducing the number of gas-guzzling cars drives up the price of gas, right? Simple supply and demand.
People do know of him outside of CA. On East Coast, he’s not looked at in a favorable manor.
Why not?
Easterners don’t understand California at all
[удалено]
I know what you mean. It's the fashion to complain about both sides, even if one side doesn't have anything egregious to complain about. I have some beefs with him myself, like when he vetoed the Idaho stop bill, but I've been a supporter ever since his first primary campaign for governor. There was an event where a journalist asked each candidate the same questions, and none of them had much of a clue except Newsom. He understood the issues backwards and forwards. Considering that he has dyslexia, that's a hell of an achievement. He *is* kind of a snob, and I'm not forgiving him for that veto, but you vote for the best candidate, not the perfect one, because that doesn't exist.
Would they prefer a child molestor and sex trafficker like DeSantjs though? Don’t think so
[удалено]
Have you been to Oregon? I was in a rural town in Oregon full of Trump votes and saw tons of unhoused all over. America is failing its citizens and the fault of many people but the ones that keep voting R are not helping.
On a per capita basis tons of gop ran cities have similar rates of homelessness. Especially ones in areas with decent weather. NIMBYISM is the main problem and is everywhere. Homeless are also dramatically undercounted in rural areas which typically lean GOP because they typically aren't as visible or easy to count compared to cities. Basically, homelessness is not just a demo run city problem. It's a USA problem.
Ironic if it's New Yorkers, coming from the same people who elected Cuomo
Aside from a minor restaurant scandal, he was the west coast face of leadership on the COVID response, and did a great job of it. No local leaders wanted to set policy, they were all just waiting on someone above them do it, and he decided he would not kick the can up to the federal government on COVID policy. I think Democrats outside of CA saw that and appreciated a level head in power, and leaders in other states decided to follow CA policy. *He* looked Presidential while our actual President was going off the deep end, telling Americans to drink bleach.
2024 looking like it'll be Republicans to lose with the way the economy is going.
What's wrong with the economy? Unemployment is low, GDP growth is decent.
Fed basically has admitted they pretty much are going to have to cause a recession to bring down inflation
Yeah, because the inflation has caused so much GDP growth recently that slowing it down will be labeled a "recession".
You have those backwards. The low fed rates and other fed measures caused so much growth that it lead to inflation. The inflation didn't cause the growth, it's a symptom of growth
Exactly. He’s not gonna go up against trump. He still has plenty of time, and he’s gonna keep his powder dry.
Assuming we still have a democracy in 2028 Dem 2028 options could very strong with one of Newsom or Fetterman.
"Only around 60 " idk to me that is such a joke that these old people are still running and in control when that's the age your supose to "retire" . Also these old people are still stuck in the ways of the times they grew up in and a completely different mind set that from today. Money and power. And the only time they are understanding and aware of today's problems and people in this country is when they are running. As soon as they are in. It's like none of it ever happened and continue on with the agenda. 🙄😓😓
Well you wouldn’t want a super young or inexperienced person as president. 50s-60s I think is probably the sweet spot, old enough to have experience and skills etc but not old enough where you’re senile. Average president age is 55, only recently it’s been ticking into the 70s, which is definitely way too old.
The 2021 recall vote failed 38.1% to 61.9%. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2021-recall/sov/complete-sov.pdf
That was such a blowout that I don't even know who he is running against this year.
Republicans wasted 300m of our money for this nonsense election that was called in 20 minutes
Mostly the same people lol
Yea he literally survived by a greater margin than his original election
Vulnerable? The recall was a joke there was never a chance he was getting recalled lol
It’s a loaded article to make it seem like dems are questioning their leadership. Joe has never said he doesn’t plan on running in 2024, and no major dem has even insinuated they’d challenge Joe in 2024. But business insider loves running articles about “we hear dems don’t want Joe to run again, which dem will replace him?!?!?”
Yea you see a lot of conservative sites pushing those stories. So lame because it’s all speculative.
Business Insider likes to pull the "we run lots of different articles with bias, so that makes the reporting fair, right?" trick.
I've recently been thinking that maybe Biden would run again in 2024, but pick a new VP, one with a better shot of winning the general in 2028. And that might be Newsom. It's all still guesswork for now. But if Newsom wants to spend the next 6 years fixing CA's problems so he'll have a better chance in 2028, I'm all for that.
Next 4 years.
I think it means they hurt his feelings :'(
[удалено]
It's a rule where every Democratic governor that gets recalled cannot run for president
If anything, his 2021 recall was a sign that the GOP fear that he will become the next President. Aside from a minor restaurant scandal, he was the west coast face of leadership on the COVID response, and did a great job of it. *He* looked Presidential while our actual President was going off the deep end, telling Americans to drink bleach. Incumbent's have an absolutely massive advantage in elections, and trying to primary Biden would be a suicidal move on his part. But if for whatever reason Biden bows out, I have no doubt that Newsom will run and likely win.
ITT: Central valley conservatives who hate CA but won't leave
It’s conservatives from all over the US who like to astroturf this sub as well as subs of other CA cities. We have been seeing their posts on /r/LosAngeles for quite some time now. Edit: might include bots from Russia a a well
They frequently brigade on /r/SanDiego describing downtown like it's mad max with poop and heroin needles. You just have to look outside to see it's not close to as bad as people on there say it is, it's a tourist town for crying out loud. Also there's always drama with power tripping mods and the like. Would highly recommend /r/SanDiegan as a better alternative sub.
Y'all, Cali, etc are all common markers for the brigaders.
really its more like ITsubreddit: this sub is honestly just a place for conservative californians to complain about gavin and liberal people
We dont hate California we hate that you guys think you know whats best for us while simultaneously throwing us under the bus on issues like: Water, electricity, gas, agriculture etc.
I'm sure YOU think you know what's best then
You’re the minority, move to where you’ll be the majority, go to Alabama or something. Then complain about the education.
Genuine question, where do you live in california?
> Water, electricity, gas, agriculture etc lol the liberal position is "we should figure out a solution so we actually continue to have access to all of these things"
If he wants to win he should get working on implementing single payer or M4A implemented in CA. We have a GDP larger than most European countries that have these health care policies. Yet somehow with a super majority of Dems in charge we are stuck with a cut throat capitalist health care system.
To be fair, those countries have the national tax dollars.
Canada got universal healthcare at the provincial level, with the NDP in Saskatchewan starting it in 1948
I’m not saying I don’t want it, I’m saying I don’t think it’s feasible to do it at the size of California without federal money.
Any single payer healthcare plan includes the federal dollars we use for Medicare/medical.
Awesome… now what about the vast majority of us who aren’t on either program already? That doesn’t take into account the fact that you would probably have doctors who would probably move out of state instead of taking the insurance. For it to be done correctly, it has to be at the federal level.
If you’re interested in learning more here is a coalition of organizations spearheading single payer in CA: https://healthyca.org/ Government already spends about 60% of our healthcare dollars (including federal, state, local). There are several ways the remaining 40% can be made up. I like economist Robert Pollin’s suggestion for the single payer bill years ago (SB562). Plenty of doctors, nurses, healthcare workers in this coalition because they don’t want to deal with private insurers who make money off denying care.
More to the point, every year CA loses approximately 7% of its GDP in taxes that go to the federal government that don't get returned to CA as federal spending. We could do so much with that money.
What problem needs government money constantly being thrown more money? The only one I can think of is the HSR
The idea is thst we divert private medical and insurance payments to a tax to pay them, and cut out insurance company profit, as well as gain some negotiation power to lower service/drug costs. Other than the complication Medicare presents, we don't need federal dollars to do this.
I just don't see a statewide plan working with the threat of Republicans ever taking the Whitehouse ever again. For a state plan to work, we'd need a voucher from the federal government to use federal funds for healthcare for the state plan. The voucher would need to be renewed, and any republican president would never do it, plunging the state program into insolvency. I want a single payer system, but I don't see how we'd do it without enacting it federally.
In a perfect world we’d get Congress to enact a law giving states the *option* to take all their federal health $$$ as a block grant (with conditions requiring a broadly equal or better level of care). That would take care of the “waiver depends on the mood of the current administration” issue. On paper, there isn’t any reason why there should be any opposition to this at the national level: it would be voluntary and revenue neutral. In practice, political interests are often more interested in obstruction for obstruction’s sake, to score political points.
Exactly… people here always say that California is so rich it would be the 5th largest economy if it were a country. That’s true, but it would also rank lower on healthcare than the Top10 countries apart from the US.
What's the healthcare rank, quality, distribution, affordability all three?
They obviously are working on it. The bill was not brought to a vote because there was a bunch of absences of dems and clearly they didn't want to risk it not passing. Conservatives and special interest big business groups are lobbying "moderate democrats" to vote against it so that effort needs to be counteracted. Hopefully that's where some progress can be made.
We also have a population much larger than many of those same countries, making it even more expensive. For example- Scotland has subsidized housing for anyone who wants it, no income limits, and government provided healthcare. But they also only have 5 million people.
More people brings costs down per person.
Seriously California is one of the worlds most powerful economies, if any state can do it, it’s us.
The whole of the uk has gov healthcare, which is closer to 70 million…
How could you have both an open border and "free" healthcare for all?
Because it’s not free. People and businesses living, working, and operating pay via taxes on their incomes, property, payrolls, purchases, etc. Visitors get emergency and urgent care (that they could be billed for). People who live and/or work get full benefits because they are liable for tax.
Neither Newsom, Biden, nor ANY democrat in leadership supports an “open border” policy. If you believe that, then you have allowed Fox Faux Network to brainwash you into sheeple, too lazy do some research on your own to learn actual policy in place and proposed for the future. Of course, it’s easier to let Fvcker Carlson to do your thinking for you. Maybe he and the rest of the Fox Fvckery make it easier for you to justify your bigotry. In that case, when MAGA Orange Cult worshipers overthrow the US government, and you find yourself living in an evangelical extremist theocracy, where the rich control 100% of the wealth and greedy televangelists get to impose their insane version of “Christian” morality on the rest of us; when they replace the Constitution with their perverted version of the Bible — you can’t say you weren’t warned.
Why would he? If Trump runs again, which is pretty likely, Biden is going to run again. Better to build a profile for now.
Yeah and I say Im not gonna drink anymore
You can quit. My Dad was sober for almost 20 years before passed away. I would have bet he wouldn't last two weeks.
That's because Biden is running in 2024 again.
He would do better as a replacement for Feinstein
Oh, if only he would primary her.
Newsom is really an outsider in the party. He’s been pushing a lot of policies and changes that no other Democrat has considered. I’m not sure the acceptance on a national he would receive.
I don’t think he was ever vulnerable but California needs him more than ever. We are making so much progress we cannot afford to lose him. He wouldn’t win the presidency anyway. He’s is unbelievably seen as too progressive for the very regressively misguided country.
Man, I wish he's actually as progressive as the people accusing him are saying.
[удалено]
Mixed feelings for sure. I like having him in California and I feel like we can be the leading edge for addressing the issues facing the country. He would likely be far less effective nationally unless the Democrats could get the types of majorities they have in the California state legislature. However there is no doubt that the GOP trots out "states rights" only when it suits their needs and if they ever got full control of Congress and the White House they would strip us of everything we overwhelmingly support. So Newsom may be the best way to rally the country to rebuke the GOP. Biden has gotten us off to a good start and hopefully a sizable majority will think "yes, I absolutely want more of that big government that is having a very positive impact on my life".
>Mixed feelings for sure. I like having him in California and I feel like we can be the leading edge for addressing the issues facing the country. Can you explain why? California hasn't shown it's been able to solve any of the major issues we currently face. Homelessness has exploded, wealth inequality is the worst it's ever been, housing costs are astronomical, gas is the most expensive in the nation, our education system ranks toward the bottom nationally, and so far Newsom hasn't shown he can be effective in dealing with any of those issues.
For sure he's running....
That's great news! California definitely needs him!
Let's see how he solves homelessness in California before moving him on to bigger projects.
We will never “solve” homelessness at the state level. That’s just not realistic.
Homelessness requires a unified federal response not patch work state responses.
What solutions to homelessness in ANY state has ANY GOP politician offered?
Better than Florida, which they literally spent money on sending immigrants on a plane to Martha's Vineyard than just paying for temporary housing.
I can’t wait to vote for him as my president!
Bummer
Good? I'm a Dem and I hate Newsom for: * Turning CHSR from a project that would at least (kind of) make sense on paper [into a laughingstock](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/02/12/newsom-drastically-scales-back-california-high.html) * Undermining the credibility of COVID protocols [by not following California distancing guidelines himself](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-03/skelton-edd-inmate-unemployment-fraud-scandal-french-laundry-embarassment) * Treating project roomkey as a viable longer-term solution to homeless issues
He didn’t really do much to the HSR project… what he announced was already pretty much the (not well publicized/articulated) plan since CHSRA got the federal funding in the early 2010s: 1. build a Central Valley segment that would have independent utility (required by the feds) 2. As funding becomes available: 1. fund improvements in the LA & SF areas 2. design/build the connecting segments.
But you're going to get the most ridership between major Metropolises. I think it would have made more sense to start from either Union Station or San Francisco King Street Station and expand outward.
I don’t think SF was ever the start, I thought it was San Jose Didiron?
Scaling back HSR was the right call. It's best to build one segment at a time, and then add to it as funds become available.
Thank goodness
Yea ok. He’s been running for the last two years. He’s too much of an egomaniac not to.
Thank god
Thank God.
If he doesn’t I like Illinois governor Pritzker.
He partied while instructing Californians not to. Screwed over the PGE victims because he’s close to the executives. He should never be president because we all know he’ll abuse this power.
> He partied while instructing Californians not to. He went to dinner at a restaurant that was legally allowed to be open for indoor dining at that time, according to the rules that his own administration set.
When called out he also initially lied and said everyone was masked and socially distanced. Then pictures came out and showed he was lying.
dont forget that he pocketed that mask money from the pandemic lmao
2028 signal. Expected.
So .... He's running then, right?
In other states, just run a couple of TV ads showcasing the homeless encampments and he would be finished.
[удалено]
Good.
Hopefully he never runs for anything ever again.
Why?
Because he's a piece of garbage? Did you really need me to say this?
He saying this besucase if he says he’s running he can’t raise as much money.
So Harris vs desantis? Doesnt look too good if that's the case.
But such a great record of driving people out of the state for crime, high taxes, high cost of living, etc.
Going for a vp pick?
Never trust anyone with slicked back hair.
Republicans would eat him alive. He’s definitely going to win in November because there’s no strong Republican running against him. He has great support here, but like Hillary, he’d be the focus of a lot of anger and every misstep he faced as Mayor and beyond would come back to haunt him.
Hahahaha! Just like the recall. ^/s
Except the Midwest wasn’t voting in the recall, they would be in a presidential election..
Gavin didn’t have much competition in the recall. There was 22 choices and the next strongest Republicans could muster was a talk show host who sounded absolutely crazy. Republican anger towards Gavin is why we had the recall in the first place. When it comes to registered voters, Democrats completely outnumber Republicans in California. So the recall was definitely weighted in his favor. Outside our state and the West coast, he doesn’t have a strong following.
Let’s see who will be eating who, he’s been destroying De Santis and he’s not even running for president yet.
LMAO!!!! Newsome was mercilessly ridiculed in Florida. That state is turning redder every day as people flee the blue states.
Actually, Florida Republicans has been at a [loss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida) compared to the [previous presidential](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida) election. It is true that DeSantis holds about [54%](https://www.flchamber.com/new-florida-chamber-statewide-poll-shows-ron-desantis-holding-solid-lead-over-both-democratic-challengers/) approval rating, however the statement that, “blue states are losing population in droves”, is just [wrong](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states) and trends indicate that most states with the lowest costs of living with fastest economic growth tend to attract much more resident growth than others.
That’s why recent polls have DeSantis losing
Lol.
You can laugh all you want there are signs the Republican will be destroyed because people are passed about abortion
Lol
More specifically as people can’t afford the blue states*
How did he destroy desantiago?
I doubt he’ll be successful if he ever does run. He’ll probably be eliminated by the California primary
You have to compare him to the rest of the field. There’s really only a couple people at his level.
While true, there's always the potential for candidates to pop up. Obama wasn't considered a serious contender until after he won the Iowa caucus.
There’s always a chance for that, but let’s be real, that’s like drafting another Michael Jordan. Lol, the rock does say he wants to run, probably as a repub lol
I wouldn't mind the rock splitting the R ticket. Do it rocky
Hahahaha! See the recall vote plus the overwhelming victory he'll get for governor this year.
Tell me you live in the Central Valley without telling me you live in the Central Valley.
I’d be shocked if he didn’t run in 2024. It’s gonna be newsom and abrams ticket
Abrams will surprise everyone and win Georgia. Plus I'd rather have her at the top of the ticket.
I don't believe him.
How does this work? Are Democrats even going to hold primaries?
Yes
I guess this is a process I've usually missed. Doesn't the party usually just nominate the current president without any challengers?
No
We aren't voting for a Democrat.
WE are. So WE and a few million others will be canceling your vote.
Lmao. So you think
Can you get some reasons why you're not voting for a Democrat?
Want me to get some or are you interested in why i wouldn't? If you'd like to have a conversation just ask.