In 2022, I penned a piece for The Hill about why there had never been a Democratic presidential nominee from California, let alone a Democratic president from the state.
Among other things, I posited that California was “the big kid on the block that everyone loves to hate,” including detractors calling it the “left coast” and other unflattering sobriquets.
The nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris last year eliminated the first never, but not the second.
Some people and pundits might conclude that Harris’s defeat portends that a California candidate for president may, indeed, face insurmountable obstacles, based on the perceptions of California in the remainder of the country. They would be wrong, in my humble opinion.
Recent developments in our political history bolster my view.
Let’s face it, we hadn’t elected a president from New York since Franklin Roosevelt. This is partially based on the fact that New York City, which, in the past, has been called “modern Gomorrah” and “fear city” — is viewed as hugely out of sync with the rest of the country, probably right next to California.
But lo and behold, in both 2016 and 2024, the country elected a president from not just New York, but from New York City, indeed, Manhattan itself. And not just anybody, but a multimillionaire who lived in a penthouse with a “24-karat gold front door.”
Oh, and a man with five kids from three different wives, who was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women’s private parts. Oh, and who had at least four different bankruptcies as a casino owner, gambling itself being considered a sin by some in the evangelical community.
With Trump’s election, all bets are off about what can and cannot be sold to the country at large.
National polls already show California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) with an early lead in the Democratic field — something Harris never had in 2020. An August Emerson College poll showed Newsom at 25 percent, leading both former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at 11 percent and Harris’s measly 5 percent.
In Harris’s case, her demise was based less on her state of origin than her inherent weaknesses as a candidate and campaigner.
In her previous run, she “peaked at 15 percent” support, not even coming within shouting distance of frontrunners Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). She also didn’t win a primary or receive one vote in the primaries, because she ran a poor campaign and dropped out of the race before a single vote had been cast.
Lest we forget, Harris obtained the nomination in 2024 through a fluke; she also didn’t compete in the primary or have the opportunity to prove herself through that long slog.
Perhaps most telling, she didn’t and doesn’t even have her home state solidly behind her. In her first run, a 2019 Los Angeles Times poll showed her with the support of only a paltry 7 percent of California Democrats.
Worse, the same poll showed 61 percent actually wanted her to drop out of the race. In 2024, she received a lesser share of the vote in California than Delawarean Biden had in 2020.
Moving forward to 2028, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll showed 72 percent of California Democrats believe Newsom should run for president. A mere 52 percent believe Harris should run.
Newsom personalized his recent drive to pass the redistricting ballot measure Proposition 50, and California voters delivered him an overwhelming 64 percent landslide victory.
In my view, the whole conventional political paradigm has been shifted — nay, invalidated — by Trump’s success in winning two presidential elections despite his humongous personal baggage and widespread negative perceptions of his home state.
His aggressive campaigning, strong personality and ability to mold together a movement overrode the negatives. Anyone who underestimates or writes off Newsom in 2028 should pay attention.
Garry South is a California-based Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of that state, and was an adviser in three presidential campaigns.