Newsom 2028?
He's clearly using the standoff with the White House to elevate his national stature.
NYT (“The 2028 Subtext of Newsom’s Speech“):
When Gavin Newsom stepped in front of a camera Tuesday evening, he was a California governor addressing his constituents as a crisis of civil disorder gripped pockets of Los Angeles.
But by the time Mr. Newsom was finished, it was clear the governor was speaking not only to his state but to his country, and his beleaguered party.
To Democrats looking for direction and leadership, Mr. Newsom used one of the highest profile moments of his political career to lay out the threat he argued President Trump posed to the nation, and how Americans should resist it. And he suggested he was the man to lead that fight.
“Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,” Mr. Newsom said. “The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”
The next presidential election is more than three years away. But it was hard to watch the speech, delivered as anti-Trump protests spread from Los Angeles to other cities, and not wonder if the 2028 campaign had already begun. This may well prove to be a turning point both for Mr. Newsom and for the Democratic Party.
With two terms as governor of the largest state in the union under his belt, Newsom has the experience, connections, and name recognition to be a plausible contender for President. I am skeptical, though, that a Californian will be able to win the nomination, much less win back the White House for the party.
The clash with Trump has certainly bolstered his enthusiasm with the base. And, depending on whether and how the protests escalate, his leadership could win over some moderates. But he’s got a lot of baggage to overcome.
I’m not sure you have an accurate understanding of what the base’s opinion of Newsome is
@Stormy Dragon:
I’ll speculate that you have a skewed understanding of who composes the Dem base.
Not that long ago, I thought it highly unlikely a New Yorker could win the GOP nomination. I am not so sure those parameters are still in place.
@Steven L. Taylor: Trump was a celebrity, not someone who rose through the ranks of New York politics, though. While Newsom is trying to tack right on issues like transwomen in women’s sports, he’s a former San Fran mayor and California LtGov. He can’t exactly run as an outsider.
Here is the transcript from Newsom’s speech. Could someone from the NYT point out to me where the governor suggested he was the man to lead the fight against Trump’s fascism?
If we don’t push back against this media garbage, the Unreality will be the fall of our country. A prominent opposing governor, from the blue state that is obviously the target of Trump’s manufactured crisis, makes a call to action and the Paper of Record makes is about a f’ing horse race that hasn’t even started. By making Newsom’s speech about the subtext, the actual text (a chilling account of federal agents jumping out of an unmarked van, a 9-month pregnant US citizen being arrested, a four-year-old girl taken, families separated, and friends disappearing) is hidden – Right in Front of our Noses.
@Sleeping Dog:
I can read the polls though: https://www.270towin.com/2028-democratic-nomination/
Too polarizing.
Chris Murphy looks like he’s getting ready to take a run at it.
I estimate Newsom would fall in between Sinema and Manchin as far as policy goes.
@Stormy Dragon:
Speaking as a resident of Los Angeles and one time delegate tot eh state convention, I think people have a skewed understanding of the California Democrats.
The party really is a very big tent, partly because for about 25 years we have been the only party that matters.
Whether you are a Silicon Valley tech firm, Hollywood studio, real estate developer or just a mom& pop business, when you want to interact with the state government in any way, you will be dealing with Democrats.
So the party has absorbed a l9ot of moderate Main Street type Republicans, people who aren’t bigots, but would prefer lower taxes and less regulation.
So long as their interests don’t directly conflict with the more liberal members of the constituency, they are able to participate in the party platforms, lobby on legislation, and have direct impact on what happens.
Newsom is a product of this dynamic. He can be a chameleon, shifting from bold combativeness to slick co-option at a moment’s notice.
@James Joyner: To be clear, I am not arguing for Newsom. I just am no longer convinced any of the old “rules” apply.
How quaint and 20th century, suggesting the American electorate that picked an Epstein-bestie, Hitler-admiring, Putin-puppet rapist felon who incited a terror attack on Congress cares about “baggage.”
Dr. Taylor is correct. All bets are off. Gov. Beshear, please save us sir.
He might get nominated but wouldn’t like his chances in the general. Any Dem nominee will be smeared as too liberal but in the case of Newsom it is more likely to stick especially as a former mayor of SF. He also comes across as too slick, what Chip calls a chameleon.
Steve
@Stormy Dragon: I dunno, looks like that poll shows name recognition is driving things right now. The progressive Left will probably once again coalesce around a candidate with values most people agree are “correct”, but as usual This Time Around – we promise, next time they’ll get their way! – they’ll be shoved into a closet and told they can only come out if they vote blue no matter who because “you have to appeal to the Center!” (Love that the Left is always told they need to sacrifice principle to maintain even a shred of hope, while the center is coddled because they can’t be trusted to decide whether it’s worth preserving democracy if it might cost them 2% extra in taxes.)
Newsom bombed nationally with his podcast entertaining the far right as though they’re adding value to society. Nobody wanted that: the centrists saw him pandering, the Left saw him normalizing delusional freaks. That said, regardless of whether he gains any traction over the next few years, I very much hope we see more of the fighting version of him than the acquiescent one, because the nascent war is going to demand people be willing to call traitors and cowards out.
Sure, Republicans have a certain narrative they like to push about the home state of Nixon, Reagan, and Arnold, but is there any evidence that the public at large buys it, to the degree that it would automatically be a crippling handicap for any Dem from there? Yes, we’ve just been through a defeat from a Californian, but I think any reasonable analysis of the 2024 outcome has to put her home state well at the bottom of explanations, assuming it appears at all. And that has very little to do with what you or I may think of Newsom (I’m far from a fan, though I do think he’s meeting the moment currently). The point is, let’s stick to evaluating him as an individual rather than invoking made-up quasi-rules based on vibes.
@DK: Not personal baggage, so much as just the downside of having to run California under some terrible constraints. There’s a lot that can be used against him in a national contest.
“I can’t say as I’d select him in the primary, but if he’s the nominee, I will vote for him.”
Every Democrat needs to get used to saying this statement.
@Jen:
Good luck with that!
@Jen:
There’s a well known experiment in behavioral economics called “The Ultimatum Game” where person A is given an amount of money and is allowed to propose a way of splitting the money between themselves and person B, and then person B can either accept the split (in which case they both get their portion of the money) or reject it (in which case neither party gets anything).
Conventional rational actor economics says that person A should propose a 99%-1% split, and that person B will accept, because even 1% is better than 0%. Actual experimental data shows that a split more than a few percent off of 50%-50% will lead to significant likelihood of person B rejecting.
Democratic moderates seem to think that if the republicans offer a minority group 0%, they just have to offer 1% and the members of that group will “have to get used to saying this statement”. Then they are shocked when large numbers of those groups reject the 1%.
Newsom may have all the world’s camera aimed right at LA’s blight in 2028 if he’s not careful here in 2025.
@Jen:
Thought experiment, if Newsom got on TV and said that it was a mistake to allow women to get credit cards without the approval of their Father/Brother/Spouse and that we should not allow that, would you find that acceptable? Especially in the context of vociferously agreeing with someone who thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to work or own property?
I’m a lifelong Democrat and I’m simply not going to vote for someone who buys into right wing lies about my existence.
The ultimate problem with Newsom is that he’s a warmed over Republican. Why would anyone vote for a warmed over Republican when you can vote for the real thing.
I’ll take Beshear or Pritzker, people who are actually willing to fight for things they believe in. Beshear actually took politically hard stances cause they were the right thing to do. Newsom routinely vetoes things that are what the California electorate want.
@JKB:
This wins the “Tell us you have no understanding of LA and it’s geography without directly telling us you have no idea of LA and it’s geography” award for the day.
@Stormy Dragon: As the guy on the Divided* ad is famed for saying:
* A game show based, in its final round, on the same UG principle except with 3 players instead of 2.
@Beth: I understand where you are coming from, and I find Newsom’s transgender positions absolutely wrong.
But I’m honestly scared about what Republicans have learned they can get away with, and if a Republican wins in 2028, it’s game over.
ETA: And, obviously, the way to avoid Newsom being the nominee is to vote in the primaries for someone else.
@Matt Bernius:
This is also “Tell us you don’t know what blight means without directly telling us you don’t know what blight means.”
Also, too, “Tell us you have no understanding of how Trump will hog the spotlight at the LA games without directly telling us you have no idea of how Trump will hog the spotlight at the LA games.”
Well, there’s a principle that says, “Ignore what politicians say, and pay attention to what they do”
On that score, Newsom’s record on trans people is probably better than many, many other governors and mayors. I have that beef with him. It’s about what he said, not about anything he did.
However, when he ran for re-election as Gov, he did not submit a statement for the voter’s guide. No statement. That’s either lazy, unfocused, or arrogant. None of those are good things. It’s 2 hours of staff work or something to do it, and it didn’t get done. That is something he did, and it really bothers me.
If you want to be a big-picture guy, fine. Hire someone to take care of this stuff for you. Good lord.
I did not support Obama in the 2008 primary, but oh my lord, did he impress me with his level of organization and detail. He beat Hillary because he, or staff, paid attention to those details.
I mean, yes, he was an appealing candidate, too. That’s not enough, though.
@Jen:
The Republicans have learned they can get away with EVERYTHING. They’ve learned this because of Democrats like Newsom.
We need less Newsom and his chameleon bullshit and more of this.
For what it’s worth, I’ll give Newsom credit for what he’s doing now. But does anyone believe he won’t change the second the wind blows a different way?
I think that the norms of American society are broken and will not be repaired. It doesn’t matter who runs in 2028. Sooner or later, and likely sooner, we’ll be led by a regime just like many countries have now. A caudillo whose giant photos are in every public place, military parades with flags, marching soldiers, etc, a secret police that snatches people off the streets. No politician ever gives up power. Centralization of power and cult of personality will continue. America will be Argentina.
@Beth:
I would say that there is a world of difference between someone that doesn’t support you and someone who actively uses the power of the state to try to legislate you out of existence and/or exterminate you.
Given an option between being deeply uncomfortable and being unsafe, I would generally grudgingly choose deeply uncomfortable. Not always, as there’s a certain charm in hurting the people making you make that choice if that’s an option and I am very spiteful, but generally.
I don’t see how anyone isn’t immediately repulsed by him. He clearly has a lot more ambition than values. Just… ew. He kind of makes my skin crawl.
But, people liked Bill Clinton, so I’m not a good judge of other people’s judgment of character.
ETA: I wish Trump was going after a state with a less unctuous governor and raising their national profile.
I don’t trust him, but he seems to be pretty good at politics. We probably need to get ready to recite Jen’s mantra.
As a long-time Angeleno, I still carry the shame of what LA’s blight did to the Olympics the last time around.
@Gustopher:
What if it’s a choice of not being safe from people who are openly out to get you and being unsafe from people who are also trying to gaslight you about how much they care?
I suspect there’s going to be a Hyde Ammendment style ban on gender affirming care coverage in medicaid, medicare, and obamacare, and someone like Newsome will leave it in place because forcibly detransitioning most trans people is worth it to buy moderate votes
@Gustopher:
You’re right and Gavin Newsom is not safe for trans people. His type of eliminationist is much slower and whose disgust is wrapped in concern. He won’t ever come out directly and say it, but he’s grossed out by us and wants us gone. He’ll let someone else do the dirty work of banning care or keeping us out of public life. But he’s down for it.
@JKB:
Again with the LA blight b.s. It’s not confined to LA or California, it is a national blight, caused in part by the narrow self interests, incompetence, and downright negligence of the Right. Take ofcypur Fox News blinders