Gavin Newsom Clear FRONT RUNNER For 2028 Nomination ft. Viva Frei
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (X & IG) Guest: Viva Frei @thevivafrei (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL Gavin Newsom Clear FRONT RUNNER For 2028 Nomination ft. Viva Frei
Newsome is becoming an obsession for Democrats beyond California.
Democrats have become obsessed with Gavin Newsom as the California governor becomes the topic for operatives, donors, and lawmakers.
unidentified
With the 2028 presidential election, it's still more than three years away.
Newsom is making the kind of name for himself that could lead to front-runner status, political operatives say.
Democrat strategist Jamal Simmons said Newsom's name is coming up more than anyone else's in recent weeks, particularly with people outside the political sphere.
So warning shot from Trump, but does indicate even in the White House, they are starting to see Newsome as potentially the frontrunner for the Democrats, which would be great, I think.
Newsome's pretty easy to beat.
He's just shot up in polling or in prediction that betting market.
He's at 35% now.
So he's just completely crushing the field on the betting side.
And even in polling, he's surging.
You see here in red, his polling has completely shot up over the last few weeks.
Now he's on par with Kamala Harris, who it's unclear if she's going to run.
Viva Fry, David Fryheit is my real name for anybody who thought it was Viva, former Montreal litigator or Quebec litigator, now living in Florida, legal analysis, commentary, and following the madness of the world on a minutely basis.
I mean, Trump fired off a warning shot this morning.
unidentified
I don't know if you saw where he had the Trump 2028 hat on Newsom.
But the fact that he's firing off a warning shot indicates that even within the White House, there's the view emerging that Newsom might be the frontrunner for 2028.
So I do think to a degree we underestimate the foolishness of the American electorate.
unidentified
Someone like Gavin Newsome, I mean, like, I know the resume is horrible, obviously, but when the media machine kicks in, someone like Gavin Newsom, he can polish things up pretty quickly.
Forget the affairs, but not everybody knows, you know, Gavin Newsom running on ending homelessness.
And so, you know, they just don't know.
People are living their lives and they, you know, they see blue and that's who they vote for.
And it doesn't matter who it is.
I ran for the People's Party of Canada in westbound NDG in my riding in Canada.
I swear to you, if they didn't see that it was a dog, they would have voted Winston for prime minister, you know, Winston for the Liberal Party because it's just they don't care, not in a negative way, but also branding.
They're going to see a charismatic, slick, well-dressed, you know, healthy-looking Gavin Newsom, and it's all branding.
If they turned Kamala Harris into the 50-50 candidate, Gavin Newsom's been around longer for good and for bad.
But yeah, no, it's branding, it's conditioning, and people will vote for blue no matter who.
It's the old expression.
Well, I mean, because I've been kind of pushing back on the idea that a lot of people in the GOP circles are discussing this with Zoron, for example, in New York.
They're saying maybe we should just let him win because it could be an example to the rest of the country of how crazy the Democrats are.
But I'm sitting here thinking, I'm like, I think Zoron, if anything, he just pushes the Overton window within the Democrat Party further to the left and just gives permission for these more moderate people to adopt more radical policies because someone like Zoron can sort of redeem his image quite quickly, especially because, I mean, he does have a degree of charisma to him.
I mean, do you think there's any credence to this theory of like, well, maybe you should just let him win to see if it gets bad enough?
No.
I mean, I say you fight politically tooth and nail because you give them an inch, they'll start fighting from that point going forward.
What's amazing, though, even with Zoran is how quickly people who are unfamiliar with his prior statements, they'll never know about them, but how quickly they can rebrand the guy into being something of a more centrist as opposed to the radical that he is.
And so it's going to be the same thing with Zoran if he gets into office.
No, I'm not that much of a radical.
I just want common sense, you know.
unidentified
transit ambassadors.
And then a year later, you are literally living in a 1984, everyone is spying on everybody Orwellian landscape.
Absolutely.
Well, I mean, like you said with Kier Starmer, I mean, you know, he's touting the wonders of diversity and he's like, okay, sure, people get stabbed and blown up, but you get kebabs.
It's fantastic.
And then all of a sudden, like overnight, he flips and he gives this speech or he calls the UK an island of strangers.
I mean, it sounded like a page out of an Enoch Powell speech.
unidentified
I mean, it was like, whoa, this is crazy.
And the media over there bought it.
And, you know, you're starting to see Gavin Newsom adopting somewhat of a similar playbook.
Gavin is ignoring the fact that, first of all, I don't trust the stats coming out of California, period, but the demographic stats in terms of who's leaving California versus who's going to California, you can't falsify those, or at least it's more difficult to.
Crime stats, if people stop reporting, they stop convicting.
They can change Asian to caucasian and then jack up one stat versus another.
But he's an abject failure, a disaster of a governor.
And I think they say between the AOCs, who doesn't even have that much of a track record to have been a failure yet versus Gavin Newsom, I can see politically they say, well, we'll take a Gavin Newsom because at least he's got a track record of failure that we will then be able to hammer home.
Well, I mean, there was a report in the New York Times either this morning or last night that the White House is considering offering gigs to Eric Adams and Curtis Liwa, the GOP candidate.
It's like basically just get him out of the way.
So that way Andrew Cuomo has a actual, has a shot at dethroning Zoron.
And Jack Pasovic, he had a speech this morning at NatCon where he was just saying, look, the thing with Zoron, it's one thing just to try and get him out of office, you know, prevent him from holding office, but you're going to have the same problem in four years.
He's saying, Jack is saying, we need to have a conversation of how are people like Zoron even getting created?
I mean, the irony is you're going to have either a mass murderer, and I consider Cuomo hyperbolically to have been a mass murderer for what he did during COVID versus an aspiring mass murderer because that's what socialists and communists are.
These are the two best candidates.
I don't like Cuomo, period.
I'd rather see everyone put their weight behind Chris, Eric Adams.
Sure.
Because I think he's a more, oddly enough, his realignment has been more organic.
It's not like a flip of the social like Kier Starmer.
He's a more reasonable person.
I would love to see him throw his support to the Republicans.
And I think there would actually be more.
I say this, I'm not sure that it's accurate, but because I just can't understand how anybody could support Cuomo, period.
Literally a man responsible for 10, 15,000 deaths, then weaponize those deaths to try to blame it on Trump.
So if it's between Zoran and Cuomo, I mean, it's the devil or the devil.
Eric Adams has gotten reasonable.
So I think he just needs to either go more independent, but align with the right or go full-throated and see what New Yorkers are prepared to tolerate because their options are bleak with those options.
Eric Adams is fine because he's clearly just a very simple guy, right?
Like you see these Zoron and Andrew Cuomo, like there's these total ladder climbers, like cutthroat.
They'll say anything to get elected.
And then Eric Adams is like every time he gives a speech, it's like he has no idea what he's going to say.
And then he's just like floating ideas in real time.
But then the economic realities of the policy sunk in, and he appreciated that it's nice to want to do good, but you have to be able to support your own children before you can have more.
unidentified
He's come around on his policies, and I think he would actually be of the three, obviously the best.
Who's the guy with the Barrett?
I don't know enough about him, but I do know that I think people are right about, you know, who am I to judge someone for what they look like?
But people who are voting for Zoran, they're the same people who were voting for Justin Trudeau in 2015.
And I voted for Trudeau in 2015, not because I liked anything about him, but first of all, I knew nothing.
You only are paying attention to 30-second commercials you see on the on TV at the time.
And if you don't know even what to look for, you're not going to know anything.
And so they're young, they're idealists, and they see in Zoran a young, newly arrived immigrant, or at least, you know, and then they're going to feel good voting for him, even though they have no idea what policies he's espousing and how it's actually going to destroy New York as anybody knows it now.
Yeah, well, it's interesting that the White House is considering it shows that the White House, this is a different ballgame compared to previous GOP administrations because they're not afraid to go on the offense to address these issues that Americans are concerned about.
I mean, Americans don't want to see our largest city fall into the hands of an insane, kind of third-world, third-worldist, Marxist, like crazy person.
And with the same regard, there's a story that the Daily Wire actually was reporting this morning where the DOJ, the DOJ, is deliberating potentially just outright banning transgender individuals from owning guns.
I don't know if you've seen this story if you're familiar.
Well, I was going to, Twitter's a weird place.
You don't want people thinking you're taking shots at other people.
No, I knew from that headline that all that the DOJ was contemplating was applying mental illness criteria to the ownership of firearms.
And they were going back to the traditional definition of gender dysphoria being a mental illness and whether or not it should be one of the mental illnesses that precludes a citizen from owning a firearm.
I'm following it.
In as much as there are disqualifying mental illnesses, you don't want psychotic schizophrenics owning firearms with delusions of reality.
Look, you can understand where the argument goes when it comes to what is, was, and as far as I'm concerned, should always be a diagnosable mental disorder of gender dysphoria.
The argument people are going to make is they once diagnosed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
And there's a fundamental difference between homosexuality and transgender dysphoria, which is homosexuality, you are who you are attracted to, someone who's the same sex.
Gender dysphoria fundamentally is a mental illness in the sense that someone has a different perspective of what they want to be reality versus what reality actually is.
unidentified
And so to compare what might have been at one point diagnosis of mental illness unfairly to that which is objectively a mental illness by any definition of the term, not analogous.
And so they can set that argument aside.
The bigger concern is going to be this is one big step towards red flag laws where they're going to say, okay, if you haven't been diagnosed as transgender, but you have certain sexual gender predilections, whatever, someone calls in the authorities, say, hey, that guy's transgender.
He owns a firearm.
Or are they going to ask you about your gender ideology on an application?
The administration definitely is bolder in what they will contemplate as talking points, even if they don't make policy of it.
I think the underlying issue here is from the military perspective, they said, look, gender dysphoria is a mental illness and it might disqualify from certain types of service.
Well, I can appreciate where they're going with the extension of this argument, especially in the wake of what we've been seeing now in the States.
And, you know, to a certain degree also up in Canada, it's just that, you know, when people who identify as trans, whatever, commit crimes, at least in Canada, it tends not to be with guns quite as much.
But we're having that same problem up in Canada now.
Yeah, well, you saw yesterday JD Vance visiting, JD Vance and his wife, Usha, visiting the site of the shooting, the pay their respects and that sort of thing.
And he had a quote that was quite interesting where he talked about how we need to have a national conversation around some of these psychological medications that people are taking.
I had Naomi Best on the show Thursday, who's a mental health expert, really.
And she broke down sort of how easy it is to access a lot of these medications and these sorts of things.
And you kind of wonder if the DOJ maybe should take more of a look at that, because I mean, like you talked about the disassociation that occurs with transgenderism where you're removing sort of your body or you're separating, putting a rift between your body and your mind, your soul, that sort of thing.
A lot of these, a lot of these psychiatric drugs do something very similar.
And we see a huge ramp up and prescriptions for these sorts of things.
Well, the admin is already heading that way.
RFK coming out and saying, look, you guys want to focus on the guns.
It's not an if anybody who I've never taken them, period.
unidentified
Full stop because I'm absolutely neurotic about what it might do.
When I was a kid and I used to suffer from migraines, a doctor said, well, we'll prescribe you a low, what's it called?
The things that like a type sedative, like an advanced type thing.
Yeah, yeah.
I said, it's for migraine.
He's like, well, you know, it relaxes you, whatever.
It's like, I don't want to take anything that tinkers with the brain chemistry.
These SSRIs, there's a reason why on the side effects, it says, you know, it might increase the risk of suicidal ideations because A, you're messing with brain chemistry.
And it's one thing to say, like, they know what it does.
They don't know what it does, but they know it does certain things.
You're messing with brain chemistry.
Some people who have depressive thoughts don't act on them because they lack the motivation, for lack of a better word to do it.
Then they get on these medications and they finally have the motivation to do now what they have wanted to do or have been contemplating doing.
So, you know, it increases the risk of these in a substantial amount of people.
And the amount of kids that are jacked up on these things, and I can tell you this from my own experience now with the public schooling system, it's insane.
And so, true, you know, someone who kills someone with a gun, necessarily they used a gun.
But what is causing this issue now, it's what's new versus what's not new.
Whether or not guns have gotten more sophisticated, guns have always been around and these shootings didn't exist 50 years ago, period.
SSRIs have not existed for 50 years to the extent that they do now.
And so you just got to you got to look at where the problem might actually be occurring.
The normalization of mental illness in today's society, and not just normalization, but glorification and glamorizing of it.
Uh, you know we've, we've literally entered the era of idiocracy, where you don't treat mental illness, you affirm mental illness, and that is exactly how you make it exponentially worse.
And we're seeing the consequences of it everywhere.
Yeah, and it's in the, in the states.
They, you know, the left wants to go straight to the gun issue.
You look up in Canada, we've got a number of very, very prominent, outrageous situations where I I don't even think the guy in in Quebec was bona fide trans, but a man murders his wife and two kids uh, says he's trans, and then there's a debate as to whether or not he gets to stay in a woman's facility.
Uh, another.
The other story that just happened up in I don't know if you heard about this uh, up in Welland, Ontario.
Uh, you know, a psychotic individual uh sexually assaults a toddler by breaking into the neighbor's house and on his facebook page it says, uh she, him.
And so you know, I don't think these are bona fide cases of transgenderism.
I think it's actually psychopaths now exploiting this movement.
But what we have now is not just uh, you know, a normalization of mental illness but an absolute glorification of it, where you get people copycatting mental illness because it creates some sort of social protection right yeah, I mean you're, you're seeing just, you're just seeing this general um, you're seeing this general decline and and people, people just aren't thinking clearly.
I mean JD Vance, when he was there laying, laying flowers, is you had a group of pro, I would say protesters.
I guess is what you kind of know, what you would call these people, just harassing them, saying you know oh, do something about this, like you're a coward, these sorts of things, and you see that.
And it's horrific and grim because we're talking about children here, and from most of the mainstream left, you know, pundit class, and even the politicians is there was almost an endorsement, a soft endorsement, of holding these politicians accountable.
And it kind of gets back to our conversation of the direction the Democrat Party is heading in.
It's like that kind of stuff is not only palatable but it's like it's emphasized, it's it's emphasized to um sort of behave this way within the Democrat Party.
Who wouldn't like it?
I mean, who on the uh, the end of what they consider to be the oppressed um, spectrum of of of the world would not love this, where victimhood is the currency, normalizing of what would otherwise be things that you'd have to work on and treat and overcome.
Now you don't have to.
Now you get to be celebrated for it.
And, from the political perspective, what is easier for a politician to do than uh, you know, basically cater to uh, the whims of the electorate without having to, you know, do anything meaningful.
And watching the RFK hearings this morning, like you have uh, this party claiming to to support the science, when what they're doing is the antithesis of science for in in every respect.
But it's, it's not just politically palatable to many, it's the easiest way to garner support by just saying it's okay, you're good, and and and uh, you know, we'll affirm, we'll affirm you.
As opposed to the tough love that good parenting requires, right now you have bad parenting in government, which is bad government, not under the Trump Admin, which is, you know, the tough parent, but that that's.
That's been the MO of the Democrat Party for the last as long as I've been politically conscious.
Absolutely.
And I mean, that's a great way to put it.
And you're seeing this tension in the Democrat Party where the guys that know how to win elections, the strategists are just pulling their hair out saying, okay, we need to moderate.
I mean, I even see people nipping at Zoron's heels saying, oh, you shouldn't concede on like police and that sort of thing.
unidentified
And it's like, yeah, you're just seeing this massive rift between strategists and the base.
Well, you can never placate people who want merit without the work.
I mean, the more you give, the more they're going to, I don't know if avarice is the word in English.
It's just going to be greed, rapaciousness.
Like the more you give those who don't deserve it or who haven't earned it, the more they think they're entitled to it and the more they're going to demand in the future.
But no, it's, you know, I'd like to say it's gotten bad enough.
We're sort of reached the pinnacle of the insanity.
I think when you started promoting not just as normal, but as morally required, men and women's sports, I think that's when it started turning for a lot of people.
But, you know, as I say, when you fight corruption, corruption fights back.
And the very vocal minority that had hitherto been getting their way simply by being a vocal minority, when they stop getting their way, they're going to get more vocal and more radical in their tactics.
And that, I think, unfortunately is what we're seeing at the political scale, is these radical minorities getting more radical, more vocal, and more violent and more destructive.
And you saw in Canada where with Trudeau, it was just basically as bad as it could get.
unidentified
And all it took was just stirring up vibes a little bit, an anti-Pierre vibe, who was clearly the competent choice to get Carney through the door.
I mean, it's like, I know Canada is obviously not directly compared to the United States, but it's very, there's a lot of similarities.
And it's like, I could see a situation in the United States where like, yeah, short-term memory, people vote on vibes, and we get a similar situation that you saw in Canada.
I mean, it could very easily happen.
No, no, for sure.
And like, incidentally, in any realm of the universe, when you're talking about the lefty radicals getting more violence, in any other realm of the universe where on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, the dude doesn't miss the shot, we're in Kamala Harris, Canada 2.0 on steroids.
And it is amazing.
Politically, by the national zeitgeist, Canada is out there with Australia.
England seems to be pushing back a little bit now, but I think it either is too little, too late, or just not enough right now.
America has always been the beacon and it's always been the exception, but it's only by an actual miracle that it's where we are now.
Because in any other realm of the universe, that day turns out differently and history goes down the, I mean, it goes to hell in a handbasket.
But no, what is crazy is just Canada is the living example of what happens when state-funded media has no meaningful opposition from what we call alternative media.
People don't really appreciate it.
Why Pierre Polyev lost that election?
It's due in large part to his own political cowardice.
But it's due also in large part to the monopoly that legacy media has over the minds, the hearts, the souls via the media up in Canada, state-funded media that amplifies or doesn't what it wants to amplify and ignores or suppresses that which it doesn't even want to give breathing air to.
And that's basically what they did to Pierre Polyev.
And he didn't do himself any favors.
But at least in America, there's a vibrant populist movement.
There's a vibrant popular, a vibrant populist base and meaningful alternative media that I dare say is, you know, has a broader reach than the legacy media.
You just don't have that in Canada.
You don't have that in Australia.
You don't really have that in the UK.
And you can see how it's very, very easy to control and manipulate entire swaths of people when you have basically a monopoly on information.
Absolutely.
I mean, you hit the nail on the head there.
Well, Viva, I mean, I imagine the majority of people know where to find you.
But for those who don't, who want more, where can people find you?
Well, I made it into a daily mail article because I was mildly critical of the, I was highlighting the Epstein missing minute yesterday.
I need someone to tell me if the guy in that missing minute was the guy who was one of the two prison guards that was sanctioned over their negligence.
But either way, I'm on the internet, Viva Fry.
If you Google it, you'll find me.
I'm live on Rumble at three o'clock daily.
That's my time in the time slot.
Twitter is the VivaFry because there's some Russian dude who had Viva Fry from way back.
And VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com is our locals community.