What I see as a fundamental strategic problem is this: you cannot enact a full progressive agenda and then immediately lose power. If that leads to electoral defeat and policy rollback, the long-run gains may be smaller than a more moderate approach that sustains governing capacity.
This raises a broader question: in expected-value terms, is it better to pass 60% of a moderate agenda for 12 years, or 100% of a progressive agenda for 2 years followed by electoral wipeout?
It kinda funny that Newsom won non college whites in ‘18. Under the hood Dems hold up decently in rural CA (Jerry Brown ran very impressively there in recent memory), but the bottom is falling out very fast.
Worked on a State Leg race in the Central Valley in ‘22 and Newsom tanking hard there in the same direction the Valley moved toward Trump in 2024 made our job a lot harder. I sometimes wonder if he/we would’ve been helped or hurt if his campaign was on TV that year. I think the abortion rights prop only failed in Stanislaus County (Modesto/Josh Harder country) because Newsom was losing by ~15 there (lost by 2 in 2018).
Side note, Newsom only did radio debates against his R challenger in both races. The second time around, it was on a Sunday afternoon at the same time the Rams and 49ers were playing.
Probably spot on. I was going to whine that Gavin Newsom seems like he would make more of an effort to move to the center than Kamala did for the general election. That his staff would likely allow him to give more interviews than Kamala's staff did. That he would likely find a way to go on Rogan (or similar podcasts) and shoot the shit. That he's passed some pro-housing deregulation which is centrist-y and good.
But, it's absolutely true that he is totally unproven in getting the votes of moderates. That he'd be running against his own electoral history. And at best he would probably squeek out a close win. Whereas if he were the exact same person who was forced to figure out how to win elections in Pennsylvania or Michigan first would be a completely different animal.
I was highly disappointed that Amy Klobuchar didn’t gain traction. I recall that one of my friends who was a strong Bernie supporter really liked her. But George Will liked her too.
I want to restate my support for a Constitutional Amendment that disqualifies anyone who has slept with Kimberly Guilfoyle from becoming President of the United States. So Gavin Newsome, Eric Villency (husband after Newsom) and Donald Trump Jr. are not eligible for the Presidency. Along with others, I'm sure.
I get what Matt is saying here, but let's also remember that the current president went from reality TV star to winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote to trying to overturn an election with a violent mob, to getting re-elected and becoming an authoritarian.
I wholly endorse the "the laws of politics still broadly apply", but applying that logic leads me to "the 2028 election will be a referendum on fascist rule". And I just can't square "A Vance administration is going to setup internment camps for liberals who don't let a militarized federal police force search their homes for immigrants, but I'm worried Newsom will enact some liberal policies I don't agree with" as a rational basis for making a decision.
To put it another way, isn't Matt, at some level, making the Romney argument of electability? "I was a Republican governor of a blue state: Here is my thousand-point policy proposal, just look at how competent and moderate I am". At least, that's what I hear when people talk about "track record of winning over Republicans" and whatnot.
You could also flip it around and say that Newsome is more like Trump in the ways that apparently matter: sharp tongue, flexible ideology, looks the part and so-on. Assuming whomever is the Democratic nominee is going to be the target of the Akira-level right-wing smear machine that is taking shape, can someone like Shapiro dive into that muck and wrestle with the pig? I feel like Newsom might.
I've been a yellow dog Democrat from California my whole life, so I've voted for Newsom a few times. I've never done it enthusiastically. He has a burning personal ambition to be president and good hair, but he's never had much in the way of good ideas. He's been mediocre as governor. According to Wikipedia, he's focused on "infrastructure and housing, climate, gun control and LGBTQ rights" as governor, but I can't think of a single accomplishment on any of those fronts that really belongs to him. He tends to bandwagon on something after other people have done the work of making it popular already. To my mind, Kamala was absolutely the better candidate, since she actually accomplished some meaningful things as California AG.
I also completely agree with Matt that we should stop running Democrats from solid blue states for national office. People like to emphasize that what Hillary and Kamala have in common as Dems who lost to Trump is that they're women, but I think the far more important consideration is that they were from one-party Democratic states. Biden's state of Delaware is pretty solidly blue, but at least no one thinks of it immediately when someone says "coastal elites".
I don't like Newsom and also doubt his electability but...
- Newsom's current polling strength is almost certainly because of his PR and media activity, not because he's a white man;
- Very plausible Newsom *is* more electable than Harris because of vibes and charisma alone;
- Gender almost certainly *was* a factor (not the only one) in both Harris and Clinton's defeats;
- This whole "Wins Above Replacement" is fine if you're comparing like-for-like, but I'm not convinced it really captures anything about a national race. Often someone is a strong candidate for local or state office for cultural or other idiosyncratic reasons that aren't generalizable.
I'll add that similarly Biden was very very similar to Hillary Clinton, yet most people would guess he was more electable than Hillary. Obviously he won in 2020 and many think he would have won in 2016. The main difference again is identity, which somewhat goes against Matt's point.
The 2028 election will not be fought on policy, affordability, or whatever. Who will navigate the chaos of running against Rubio/Vance in 2028 and DJT who has still not committed to no third term while various states of emergency and escalations with China start happening, and the Dem candidate, whoever it is, is being accused of, and "investigated" for treason? Who is going to be the Yglesian Ideal Moderate with no baggage who can also win against those headwinds?
i think that matt is correct that newsom is running in the same lane as harris, all the tweets and gymanstics nonwithstanding. so, he has a good chance if harris chooses not to run. but, if she does run, then we are likely to get her (if there is consolidation of the establishment lane) or aoc (if not).
edit: my appeal to authority is that ``this is what claude told me when i asked it to model the dem primary, tell me about the possible lanes etc''. i do think it might be overindexing on name recognition, vibes, current polls etc, so the people who are not (yet) ``national politicians'' may be undervalued.
I feel like this article was targeted at me. I like Newsom and generally think he'd be a better candidate than you do. Perhaps you'd classify it under "vibes", but the fact that he's been one of the few to sling back at Trump in both humorous (the kneepads) and real (prop 50) ways, in a party that looks overwhelmingly pretty weak, he stands out as being strong. The first interview I heard with him I walked away feeling like I could see the swing voters in my life swing for him. A strong, funny guy seems right up their alley.
The fact that he's from California but throws out the occasional center-right take or directly oppositional take against (unpopular) Dem ideas, makes his takes feel like a bigger statement than they are, which I think is an advantage. People like my Trump-voting family, see California as a place full of hardcore leftists, and Newsom is strikingly not that. These sorts of gaps in expectations vs reality, can get you far, I've noticed in recent years. The fact that people *expect* republicans not to go after their rights, seems to make them blind to the fact their rights are disappearing and republicans are getting away with it- in a way the left never could. Kamala.. didn't really do that. I don't think she had much of a expectations-reality gap. She was moderate and maybe took a couple more centrist positions, but it never felt believable and I don't think she had the "California" label as strongly as Newsom does. It never felt oppositional or defiant. She just felt a little reserved.
In the end, I'm not saying Newsome can or should win out, but I'm open to it. And very curious what the swing voters will think. I'm not familiar with his previous campaigns, but I get the impression he's kind evolved into something different in recent history. I know you're right that he's catering toward the "mes" of the world, but still I'm curious to see how it plays out and I don't think we should push him down before he's even been given a chance.
The centrists underestimate the fact that politics is visceral. Being a "presidential looking" in-group dude means the low info median voter will naturally give him a hearing they would not be willing to give an outgroup coded individual.
Of course Newsom may still fuck it up probably because it will be reveled that he has unacknowledged children from affairs or that he did some pay-for-play stuff but he is a skilled and confident communicator very much unlike Kamala Harris.
Newsom can chat with right-leaning podcast bros in buddy-buddy fashion with an ease and confidence Kamala Harris simply would never have been allowed to assume because of who she is. That is not nothing.
I'm not a huge Newsom-head or anything. But like you said the best skill he has is the ability to say "no" to the left wing of the party. And in retrospect the most valuable skill for the Democratic nominee in '16, '20 and '24 would have been... the ability to say "no" to the left wing of the party.
This is I think quite right (without as not being a Cali person having any real opinion on Newsom) "I think Democrats have a bad tendency to over-index on candidate demographics as the key dimension of electability. After Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, a lot of Democrats felt that she was done-in by the misogyny of the American people. It therefore came to be understood, in rank-and-file circles, that going for an “electable” option in 2020 meant a white man."
I think it's clear overall the 21st Century Democrats have become far too sold on Identity in a certian meaning over other factors.
If Newsom is the candidate, I think both parties will be running with Jacob Marley's chains around their necks. Newsom because the GOP will be running against uber-liberal California, the the Dems against the train wreck of the Trump administration.
I'd personally prefer someone like Amy Klobuchar, Josh Shapiro, or Gretchen Whitmer in '28. Or some combination. Pick two credible candidates from swing states who have to work both sides of the aisle.
What I see as a fundamental strategic problem is this: you cannot enact a full progressive agenda and then immediately lose power. If that leads to electoral defeat and policy rollback, the long-run gains may be smaller than a more moderate approach that sustains governing capacity.
This raises a broader question: in expected-value terms, is it better to pass 60% of a moderate agenda for 12 years, or 100% of a progressive agenda for 2 years followed by electoral wipeout?
It kinda funny that Newsom won non college whites in ‘18. Under the hood Dems hold up decently in rural CA (Jerry Brown ran very impressively there in recent memory), but the bottom is falling out very fast.
Worked on a State Leg race in the Central Valley in ‘22 and Newsom tanking hard there in the same direction the Valley moved toward Trump in 2024 made our job a lot harder. I sometimes wonder if he/we would’ve been helped or hurt if his campaign was on TV that year. I think the abortion rights prop only failed in Stanislaus County (Modesto/Josh Harder country) because Newsom was losing by ~15 there (lost by 2 in 2018).
Side note, Newsom only did radio debates against his R challenger in both races. The second time around, it was on a Sunday afternoon at the same time the Rams and 49ers were playing.
Probably spot on. I was going to whine that Gavin Newsom seems like he would make more of an effort to move to the center than Kamala did for the general election. That his staff would likely allow him to give more interviews than Kamala's staff did. That he would likely find a way to go on Rogan (or similar podcasts) and shoot the shit. That he's passed some pro-housing deregulation which is centrist-y and good.
But, it's absolutely true that he is totally unproven in getting the votes of moderates. That he'd be running against his own electoral history. And at best he would probably squeek out a close win. Whereas if he were the exact same person who was forced to figure out how to win elections in Pennsylvania or Michigan first would be a completely different animal.
I was highly disappointed that Amy Klobuchar didn’t gain traction. I recall that one of my friends who was a strong Bernie supporter really liked her. But George Will liked her too.
Coincidentally, Ruy Texeiera in The Free Press today writes a similar, but even deeper, piece on Gavin's appeal but deep flaws:
https://www.thefp.com/p/if-newsom-is-the-front-runner-democrats
I want to restate my support for a Constitutional Amendment that disqualifies anyone who has slept with Kimberly Guilfoyle from becoming President of the United States. So Gavin Newsome, Eric Villency (husband after Newsom) and Donald Trump Jr. are not eligible for the Presidency. Along with others, I'm sure.
I get what Matt is saying here, but let's also remember that the current president went from reality TV star to winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote to trying to overturn an election with a violent mob, to getting re-elected and becoming an authoritarian.
I wholly endorse the "the laws of politics still broadly apply", but applying that logic leads me to "the 2028 election will be a referendum on fascist rule". And I just can't square "A Vance administration is going to setup internment camps for liberals who don't let a militarized federal police force search their homes for immigrants, but I'm worried Newsom will enact some liberal policies I don't agree with" as a rational basis for making a decision.
To put it another way, isn't Matt, at some level, making the Romney argument of electability? "I was a Republican governor of a blue state: Here is my thousand-point policy proposal, just look at how competent and moderate I am". At least, that's what I hear when people talk about "track record of winning over Republicans" and whatnot.
You could also flip it around and say that Newsome is more like Trump in the ways that apparently matter: sharp tongue, flexible ideology, looks the part and so-on. Assuming whomever is the Democratic nominee is going to be the target of the Akira-level right-wing smear machine that is taking shape, can someone like Shapiro dive into that muck and wrestle with the pig? I feel like Newsom might.
I've been a yellow dog Democrat from California my whole life, so I've voted for Newsom a few times. I've never done it enthusiastically. He has a burning personal ambition to be president and good hair, but he's never had much in the way of good ideas. He's been mediocre as governor. According to Wikipedia, he's focused on "infrastructure and housing, climate, gun control and LGBTQ rights" as governor, but I can't think of a single accomplishment on any of those fronts that really belongs to him. He tends to bandwagon on something after other people have done the work of making it popular already. To my mind, Kamala was absolutely the better candidate, since she actually accomplished some meaningful things as California AG.
I also completely agree with Matt that we should stop running Democrats from solid blue states for national office. People like to emphasize that what Hillary and Kamala have in common as Dems who lost to Trump is that they're women, but I think the far more important consideration is that they were from one-party Democratic states. Biden's state of Delaware is pretty solidly blue, but at least no one thinks of it immediately when someone says "coastal elites".
I don't like Newsom and also doubt his electability but...
- Newsom's current polling strength is almost certainly because of his PR and media activity, not because he's a white man;
- Very plausible Newsom *is* more electable than Harris because of vibes and charisma alone;
- Gender almost certainly *was* a factor (not the only one) in both Harris and Clinton's defeats;
- This whole "Wins Above Replacement" is fine if you're comparing like-for-like, but I'm not convinced it really captures anything about a national race. Often someone is a strong candidate for local or state office for cultural or other idiosyncratic reasons that aren't generalizable.
I'll add that similarly Biden was very very similar to Hillary Clinton, yet most people would guess he was more electable than Hillary. Obviously he won in 2020 and many think he would have won in 2016. The main difference again is identity, which somewhat goes against Matt's point.
The 2028 election will not be fought on policy, affordability, or whatever. Who will navigate the chaos of running against Rubio/Vance in 2028 and DJT who has still not committed to no third term while various states of emergency and escalations with China start happening, and the Dem candidate, whoever it is, is being accused of, and "investigated" for treason? Who is going to be the Yglesian Ideal Moderate with no baggage who can also win against those headwinds?
i think that matt is correct that newsom is running in the same lane as harris, all the tweets and gymanstics nonwithstanding. so, he has a good chance if harris chooses not to run. but, if she does run, then we are likely to get her (if there is consolidation of the establishment lane) or aoc (if not).
edit: my appeal to authority is that ``this is what claude told me when i asked it to model the dem primary, tell me about the possible lanes etc''. i do think it might be overindexing on name recognition, vibes, current polls etc, so the people who are not (yet) ``national politicians'' may be undervalued.
I feel like this article was targeted at me. I like Newsom and generally think he'd be a better candidate than you do. Perhaps you'd classify it under "vibes", but the fact that he's been one of the few to sling back at Trump in both humorous (the kneepads) and real (prop 50) ways, in a party that looks overwhelmingly pretty weak, he stands out as being strong. The first interview I heard with him I walked away feeling like I could see the swing voters in my life swing for him. A strong, funny guy seems right up their alley.
The fact that he's from California but throws out the occasional center-right take or directly oppositional take against (unpopular) Dem ideas, makes his takes feel like a bigger statement than they are, which I think is an advantage. People like my Trump-voting family, see California as a place full of hardcore leftists, and Newsom is strikingly not that. These sorts of gaps in expectations vs reality, can get you far, I've noticed in recent years. The fact that people *expect* republicans not to go after their rights, seems to make them blind to the fact their rights are disappearing and republicans are getting away with it- in a way the left never could. Kamala.. didn't really do that. I don't think she had much of a expectations-reality gap. She was moderate and maybe took a couple more centrist positions, but it never felt believable and I don't think she had the "California" label as strongly as Newsom does. It never felt oppositional or defiant. She just felt a little reserved.
In the end, I'm not saying Newsome can or should win out, but I'm open to it. And very curious what the swing voters will think. I'm not familiar with his previous campaigns, but I get the impression he's kind evolved into something different in recent history. I know you're right that he's catering toward the "mes" of the world, but still I'm curious to see how it plays out and I don't think we should push him down before he's even been given a chance.
Midwestern Trump-Biden-Trump family members like Newsom. And yes, it's largely identity.
-He's a white dude with kids who looks presidential
-He sounds presidential
-He credibly distances himself from the worst of Californian excesses, which family attribute to minority mayors of large cities.
Anecdotes are not terribly useful, but that is what I am hearing back home. People there do not liken him to Harris at all.
The centrists underestimate the fact that politics is visceral. Being a "presidential looking" in-group dude means the low info median voter will naturally give him a hearing they would not be willing to give an outgroup coded individual.
Of course Newsom may still fuck it up probably because it will be reveled that he has unacknowledged children from affairs or that he did some pay-for-play stuff but he is a skilled and confident communicator very much unlike Kamala Harris.
Newsom can chat with right-leaning podcast bros in buddy-buddy fashion with an ease and confidence Kamala Harris simply would never have been allowed to assume because of who she is. That is not nothing.
I'm not a huge Newsom-head or anything. But like you said the best skill he has is the ability to say "no" to the left wing of the party. And in retrospect the most valuable skill for the Democratic nominee in '16, '20 and '24 would have been... the ability to say "no" to the left wing of the party.
This is I think quite right (without as not being a Cali person having any real opinion on Newsom) "I think Democrats have a bad tendency to over-index on candidate demographics as the key dimension of electability. After Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, a lot of Democrats felt that she was done-in by the misogyny of the American people. It therefore came to be understood, in rank-and-file circles, that going for an “electable” option in 2020 meant a white man."
I think it's clear overall the 21st Century Democrats have become far too sold on Identity in a certian meaning over other factors.
If Newsom is the candidate, I think both parties will be running with Jacob Marley's chains around their necks. Newsom because the GOP will be running against uber-liberal California, the the Dems against the train wreck of the Trump administration.
I'd personally prefer someone like Amy Klobuchar, Josh Shapiro, or Gretchen Whitmer in '28. Or some combination. Pick two credible candidates from swing states who have to work both sides of the aisle.
Or maybe the asteroid will save us.