Gavin Newsom is the 2028 front-runner and that’s bad

Plus the SPEED Act, the Pope’s pricing strategy, and some Dutch politics takes

Governor Gavin Newsom at a press event. His rise has sparked new electability questions. (Photo by Anadolu)

The Searchlight Institute recently released some polling on corruption that shows incredibly high levels of public support for a range of anti-corruption measures that go way beyond the discussion of congressional stock trading.

Voters love the idea of removing elected officials who are suffering mental decline (87 percent support, though it’s hard for me to see how implementation would work), requiring drug tests for elected officials (81 percent support and it’s easy to implement), tracking and reporting elected officials’ work hours (75 percent support, but I think it’s a terrible idea on the merits), and instituting an annual town-hall requirement for members of Congress (73 percent support and why not?).

But I think the single most important finding in the poll is that when they asked whether various actions count as corruption it was clear that respondents weren’t just talking about taking bribes or accepting favors from corporations with business before the government. According to the poll, “over three-quarters of voters (78 percent) consider a politician corrupt when they vote the way that elites in their social group want, instead of what most people want.”

I know a lot of Democrats who are frustrated that the party doesn’t have a larger edge on the corruption issue, and they’re mostly angry at either the media for not spotlighting Trump’s corruption more or else at other Democrats for not messaging better on Trump’s corruption. Better messaging is always better! But this hazy sense that taking unpopular positions is a form of “corruption” is, if not particularly logical, a powerful explanation of the dynamics.

---

Brian: People often blame Me Too and dating apps for this generation’s dating woes. But I wonder if the problem runs deeper than that. I wonder if technology in general has made us all more comfortable on our own by giving us the ability to endlessly consume content related to our interests, such that we become more attached to our own interests, more peculiar, and in turn less inclined to forge bonds with people in real life. Thoughts?

To offer an optimistic framing, “stay home alone tonight” is much more appealing in 2025 than it was in 1985. You can stream or scroll to your heart’s content. You can download a public domain literary classic for free. You can get food delivered from a wide range of restaurants. You can send jokes to your favorite group chats. Spending an evening at home alone is still not the most exciting or glamorous thing one could be doing with one’s time, but it is a lot better than it used to be.

So it’s perhaps not so surprising that people are doing this more and going out on dates less, going to parties less, hanging out with friends less, etc. Unfortunately, this may be the end of humanity.

lwdlyndale: I’ve noticed a number of left-of-center folks (you, Josh Barro etc.) getting worried about Newsom winning the nomination and then losing the general election due various California policy stances (Medicaid for unauthorized immigrants etc.) and a lack of experience running in competitive general elections. What should people who are worried about Newsom start doing to try to prevent this? Other than furiously posting more and subscribing to Slow Boring of course.

I do think that “posting more” is probably the optimal solution here.