R_P wrote:

Gets 'em in the door. After that.... 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Worked really well the last time. ðŸ˜

Today I learned Newsom was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle.   

 black321 wrote:

The democrats are loosing frequently, but they are loosing by a tiny margin, and I'm not sure if you re-run the election today that holds. No one is saying the Republicans need to re-tool to avoid a razor thin margin.  What happens when trump dies (after the party and all)? Vance can't hold the coalition together, the power they have is all behind the curtain, there is no leader in the party other than trump, and he wants to pass the baton to his kids, how is that going to work?

Both parties need big shakeups. The electorate is the entity that really should be forcing the issue with a 3rd (and fourth/fifth) party(ies), but they are too locked into the marketing cycle.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Democrats need to find a way to communicate with the working class again. 
I'm not sure a guy like Newsom has those skills. He's got a lot of the right ingredients being intelligent, charismatic, maybe even practical in the sense he seems willing to learn/change, essentially an elite...but the working class seem to think that's not what is needed. 

 kurtster wrote:
It was a simple example (relatively speaking) of a much more complicated healthcare problem.  

The sin tax conversation is the easy side of the ethics debates, but has nicely illustrated why nothing ever gets done. 

 Proclivities wrote:

Yes indeed.

The primary point that I was trying to make is that these taxes almost never benefit those who pay the taxes.

 kurtster wrote:
Also, "sin" taxes (for alcohol and tobacco products) vary by state and city.  For cigarettes, Chicago has a combined state and city tax of over $7 per pack, NYC's combined state and city tax is over $6 per pack while Missouri is 17¢ and NC is 45¢.  
Washington has a state excise tax of over $36 per gallon on distilled spirits, while Texas is $2.40, and Tennessee is over $1 per gallon for beer, while NYS is less than 15¢.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
First... you didn't answer my question (I should have left the edit off).

I don't think Kelly can win the general.  He's a good guy, but won't deliver enough energy to stand out in a crowded primary debate.   I think Newsom gets the attention, but I'm not sure he doesn't have too many weaknesses from his CA days.   If I had to pick one of the two to win... I'd go with Newsom.  

 kcar wrote:
Your numbers do not include local taxes and sales taxes earned on retaxing the taxes.  I did do an in depth study some 5 to 10 years ago (and posted the results in a thread,) and came up with around $100 billion in total tax revenue from tobacco products.   Yes the present revenue is declining due to fewer users.  Healthcare costs were also much less 13 years ago.  So I stand by my story.

Apparently I posted it 11 years ago referring to numbers I found some 2 years earlier.  And that predates your earlier reference of 2014 to date.

https://radioparadise.com/comm...

 kurtster wrote:

Your claims don't match the evidence. The feds and the states collect far less tax revenue from tobacco than you claim, and the healthcare costs of US smokers is around $225 billion/year. Another $156 billion is lost per year due to decreased productivity. 



From Global Action to End Smoking: 

https://globalactiontoendsmoki...

• In 2022, an estimated 62.9 million people (38.4 million males and 24.3 million females) aged 15 years and older were tobacco product users in the United States of America. This positions the country as the 4^th globally and the 1^st in the WHO Region of the Americas in terms of number of tobacco users.^1,2"

From the US Government Accountability Office: 

https://www.gao.gov/blog/tobac...

"Over the last decade, federal revenues from tobacco excise taxes have dropped by more than 30%—from about $14 billion to $9 billion from fiscal years 2014 to 2024."


From the CDC: 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ph....

"In 2024, states will collect nearly $26 billion from tobacco taxes and the 1998 Tobacco Settlement. They will also be getting $1.1 billion from a lawsuit against Juul.6 The CDC recommends that states, in total, spend $3.3 billion on tobacco prevention."


From Global Action to End Smoking (same link as above):

" In 2021, tobacco use caused an estimated loss of 10.0 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which was about 19.7% of total DALYs. Tobacco accounted for 1.9 million DALYs for IHD, 528.3 thousand DALYs for Stroke, 2.3 million DALYs for Lung Cancer, and 2.0 million DALYs for COPD.

Smoking-related illnesses in the United States cost more than USD 300 billion each year, where USD 225 billion are spent for direct medical care for adults; more than USD 156 billion arise in lost productivity, where USD 5.6 billion account for secondhand smoke exposure."

 rgio wrote:  
We already do that for tobacco, but as usual, instead of taking the direct tobacco taxes and applying them to the healthcare of users, the money goes to all kinds of things totally unrelated.

In the past I've looked at these taxes hard and the amount of money raised would cover the healthcare expenses for users and still leave money on the table.  Just for a round number, these tobacco taxes are roughly $100 billion per year on a national basis, if my memory serves me right.

They are called "sin taxes" when in reality they prey on the addicted.  The real sin is that they do nothing to benefit the taxed.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

yup

 black321 wrote:

Obama

 rgio wrote:

All of that is meaningless if he's not getting laughs. Seriously, maybe by 2028 we won't be winning elections by social media shares, but if he's not funny and charming enough to make people notice his Reels and share them a lot, he's a nonstarter. You can rationalize it all you want but he's got to be more of a beer-drinkin' pal or something that has zero to do with running a country.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

i guess i would say a candidate needs to have charisma, eg kennedy, reagan, clinton...but in the service of leading/ bringing the country together.
but, yeah your point is taken to the reality of what grabs votes these days. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
So who is more marketable.... appreciating all of the channels that a candidate now has to navigate... Newsom or Kelly?


EDIT:  According to AI it's Kelly....

Mark Kelly edges out Gavin Newsom in marketability for a presidential run due to his unique background as a Navy combat veteran, astronaut, and pragmatic senator from a swing state like Arizona.

Key Strengths
Kelly's recent media blitz, sparked by clashes with President Trump, has boosted his national profile without the flamboyance that sometimes alienates voters. His understated confidence and bipartisan appeal contrast with Newsom's polished but polarizing style, often criticized as "cronyism" tied to California politics. 

Public Perception
Polls and betting markets show growing buzz for Kelly as a 2028 contender, with Democrats viewing him as a steady alternative to flashier figures. Newsom excels in oratory and political maneuvering but carries baggage from California's image problems, limiting his crossover appeal. 

Comparison Table

Aspect	Mark Kelly	Gavin Newsom
Background	Astronaut, veteran, swing-state win	CA Governor, strong debater
Media Momentum	Trump feud elevates visibility	National profile but regional ties
Voter Appeal	Pragmatic, broad demographics	Progressive base, less independents
2028 Buzz	Betting markets, ticket talk	Frontrunner mentions, crony critiques

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

100%

 black321 wrote:

This is why Democrats don't win 100% of elections. People don't give 2 shits about that. A viable candidate has to be a marketable entity first, competent at governance second or fifth. 

Newsom? 
He might be a decent candidate, if...California could figure out how to balance its budget. Despite fiscal responsibility being low on the poll of requirements for either party. 

edit, I’m also not a fan of his focus on positioning himself as a cultural warrior for the left; leadership/substance should take precedence over political posturing.