Commentary: Gavin Newsom is a lame duck. Can his presidential hopes still take flight?

Gavin Newsom is a lame duck. Can his presidential hopes still take flight? - Click here to listen to this article - Share via See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred - California’s Democratic governor leaves office in just a few months, allowing him to devote full time to a 2028 presidential run. - Can he sell, outside the comfortable confines of California, the progressive agenda he’s lately embraced? Gavin Newsom, the California governor who loves to heckle Donald Trump and talk about the “big swings” he’s taken at policy while in office, is now a lame duck. Within a few short months, he will be termed out of office and return to being a regular citizen, if not an average one. Newsom’s presidential ambitions are stronger than ever, and there’s virtually no list of Democratic hopefuls that doesn’t include his name near the top. But 2028 is a long way away, about a millennium in political time. Newsom has a tough road ahead to not just stay relevant, but also to forge a difficult path between keeping a national profile as a Trump-attacking defender of democracy and not getting pummeled (or worse, ignored) when he loses the safety and power of his elected office. Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak take a look at what the next few months, and the next year, may have in store after the governor becomes simply Mr. Newsom. Chabria: Newsom is making the most of his last leg in office. Recently, he went on an election jaunt through the South, visiting the Carolinas and Alabama to help campaign and raise money in those states. Chabria: Trump has a new scheme to suppress the California vote this November. The threat is real The Voting Rights Project at UCLA files a lawsuit to stop Americans’ personal data from being swept up by the federal government to further Trump’s false conspiracy about illegal immigrants voting in elections. It is not his first out-of-state trip to lend a hand in campaigns, but likely one of his last as governor. He wouldn’t be the first elected official to have a gap year (or years) before being elected to the Oval Office — Ronald Reagan had more than five years off between being governor of California and winning the presidency — but it’s definitely a disadvantage. How much do you think being out of office hurts Newsom? Barabak: Loyal readers of this column — thanks, we appreciate both of you! — know I’ve long looked askance at our gallivanting governor and his extracurricular, eyes-on-2028 activities. I understand that preening and politicking is way more fun and ego-enhancing than the minutiae of government in Sacramento. At the same time, I’m old-fashioned enough to think a person should do the job taxpayers are paying them to do. But, as you note, that will be a moot point soon enough. I’m not certain being out of office will be all that great a hindrance. In fact, I think it offers advantages, the main one being Newsom’s freedom to devote his full time and energies to running for president. You mention Reagan; I don’t think it’s an accident he made two failed tries for the White House while serving in Sacramento. Pete Wilson also attempted the leap from the state Capitol to Washington, and failed badly. It’s tough to do both. As Dan Schnur, a former Wilson strategist, once put it, “There aren’t any direct flights from Sacramento to Manchester” — New Hampshire traditionally being home to the first primary — “and you can’t run the state from a cellphone at O’Hare” airport. So I don’t think exiting office will necessarily hurt Newsom. But I’m highly dubious of his presidential prospects nonetheless. You? Chabria: This is definitely a wide-open race, with, I suspect, contenders not yet on any lists. It’s way too early to know if Newsom will make it in the primary, but I do think he’s positioning himself in a way that differentiates him from some of the folks he may run against. Andy Beshear says voters want a healer in 2028, not someone who’ll match President Trump insult for insult. His focus on nuts and bolts makes him a popular blue governor in a very red state. Socialism is the right’s boogeyman, framed as a peril to democracy full of death panels and welfare fraud. More than one presidential aspirant has shied away from the label for fear of supposedly losing middle-ground voters or being dragged through the “communist” muck that MAGA media such as Fox News love to sling. In a recent PBS interview, though, Newsom didn’t disavow some democratic socialist ideas, such as Medicare for all, pointing out that California has long had a powerful progressive faction and many of the ideas considered radical for the right are run of the mill here — and potentially popular across the country. Newsom seems to be embracing some of those lefty stances, especially ones about affordability and opportunity. While affordability is going to be everyone’s platform, pairing it with big-swing policy like universal health insurance might appeal to voters tired of words without action. It’s a smart lane, embracing MAGA’s labels instead of defending against them, with policies even middle-ground voters might appreciate in these increasing desperate days when ground beef averages nearly $7 a pound and coffee costs more than booze. Barabak: While I’m skeptical the words “socialism” and “communism” are the talisman that President Trump and other Republicans believe, warding off what could be a dreadful midterm election for the GOP, I still believe the connotation — wacky, lefty policies — has potency among a not-insignificant slice of the electorate. November’s election is going to be a referendum on Trump, as Newsom himself frequently says. The fight for the Democratic nomination is a contest of a whole other order. We agree that no fellow Democrat is going to cede the $7-a-pound affordability argument to Newsom. But to offer some differentiation, many will doubtless portray him as being a bit too out there, especially when they start making the electability argument. And that’s not to mention what awaits him if Newsom were to emerge as the Democratic nominee. (Fun fact: In 1988, it was a Democratic primary opponent, Al Gore, who first criticized Michael Dukakis over Massachusetts’ prison-furlough program. Republicans then seized upon the issue and used it as a bludgeon, to Dukakis’ great detriment, in the fall campaign.) In a way, it’s interesting we’re even having this discussion about whether Newsom is too far left. There are parts of his record — his chummy ties to Silicon Valley, his light regulatory stance toward data centers, his making nice with the likes of Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, that make some Democrats question whether he’s too far right. Chabria: It’s true that Newsom is more centrist than progressive, and equally true that most of America misses that point. I think there is a version of the next election, though, where the Democratic Party has its own Tea Party moment, when a populist faction wanting social change carries power. Call it the anti-Trump swing, the search for a Democrat who seems authentic and pugilistic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker fit this mold. Everything we know about elections and electability really is up for grabs in this new age of technology and billionaire influence, and the vein of frustration within the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is only growing stronger because of it. If Republicans do lose out in the midterms — and I am not convinced they will — it changes the calculation on everything, including how far left the average independent voter may swing in the face of an economically crushing oligarchy. But I would be remiss if I did not say this: Fears that Trump will interfere with the midterms or the next presidential election are justified. Even though things have calmed a bit — there is less talk of agents of some sort at polls — he is pursuing policies and pushing propaganda that could harm a fair election. We need to safeguard elections, otherwise candidates don’t matter. Barabak: Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states Trump’s attempts to undermine democracy has elevated the importance of election oversight. Election deniers are on the ballot in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin and could cause mischief in 2028. Barabak: We 100% agree on that. Candidates, and the campaigns they wage, matter only if elections are free and fairly conducted and all sides —looking at you, President Trump — acknowledge and abide by the outcome. I wouldn’t, however, infer too much from the outcome in November. For many voters, it will be a chance to vent — about inflation, an unpopular war, Trump’s brazen money-grubbing, his blatant disinterest in the lives and livelihoods of struggling Americans and anything else that’s causing an irritating rash under their collars. That’s why it seems more likely than not Democrats will at least win control of the House. But midterm results are notoriously unreliable barometers of the presidential election that follows. To give just a few examples, Republicans walloped Democrats in the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections and yet Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama each won reelection just two years later. In 2022, Democrats fared surprisingly well in the midterm election, and in 2024, well ... you know what happened. Chabria: I don’t think America has a past political moment that can be compared to this one. By nearly every independent measure, the United States is closer to an autocracy than we’ve ever been. We’ve lost the respect and trust of our allies, and a political party that has the support of only about 30% of citizens is reshaping our social and civic life under white nationalist principles. We are in a high-stakes moment, and the next election won’t be a decision between Democrats and Republicans, but between democracy and something else. The sad truth is that in 2024, more Americans did not vote at all than voted for Trump. About 64% of eligible voters cast a ballot, and Trump received only 49.8% of those votes. The next Democratic nominee can come with whatever message they want, but if Democrats don’t vote, their candidates don’t win. So for Newsom, or whoever the nominee is, the first victory may be the nomination — but the real test will be turning out the vote. Barabak: It’s a long way — about a millennium, as you said — from here to November 2028. I agree, though, on the importance of not sitting out this or any election, for that matter. I recollect a button I once saw in a shop on Elm Street, the main drag through, yes, downtown Manchester! It read: “Didn’t vote? Don’t bitch.” That pretty well sums it up. More to Read Insights L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles. Viewpoint Perspectives The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the piece The column portrays Gavin Newsom as a lame-duck governor whose term limits will soon push him out of office, but it argues that being out of office may free time and energy for a presidential bid rather than fatally weakening his prospects. It notes that past governors such as Ronald Reagan successfully navigated a multi‑year gap between state office and the White House, suggesting Newsom could do the same. At the same time, the piece contends that Newsom’s presidential path is difficult, emphasizing skepticism about his overall electability even as his name appears near the top of many informal lists of Democratic hopefuls. It stresses that juggling a governorship and a national campaign is nearly impossible, and suggests that while leaving Sacramento removes that conflict, it does not resolve doubts about whether voters will ultimately embrace him. The column argues that Newsom is deliberately carving out a distinct ideological lane by leaning into some democratic socialist‑style policies, such as Medicare for all and universal health insurance, and pairing them with a broader affordability message focused on rising everyday costs. It suggests that embracing labels often deployed by MAGA media as attacks, rather than running from them, could make him seem authentic and action‑oriented to voters frustrated by economic strain and political gridlock. Yet the piece also highlights the risk that those positions allow rivals to brand Newsom as “too far left,” even as parts of his record — including friendly ties to Silicon Valley and a relatively light regulatory posture toward data centers — prompt other Democrats to question whether he is actually too centrist or business‑aligned. This tension, the column contends, will sharpen intraparty debates over electability and ideological direction in a wide‑open 2028 primary. The article suggests that the Democratic Party could experience its own Tea Party‑style populist surge, fueled by rank‑and‑file anger at inequality, billionaire influence and the sense that traditional political metrics no longer apply in a technology‑driven era. In that scenario, it sees Newsom competing with figures such as Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker for a “pugilistic,” populist mantle attractive to voters seeking a Democrat who appears both combative and genuine. The column repeatedly frames the next presidential contest less as a standard partisan choice and more as a high‑stakes decision between democracy and a drift toward autocracy, arguing that Trump’s efforts to reshape institutions and spread election‑related disinformation have moved the United States closer to authoritarianism. It warns that safeguarding election integrity is a prerequisite for any candidate’s viability, regardless of message. Across the discussion, the piece underscores that turnout is the decisive test for Newsom or any eventual Democratic nominee, noting that in 2024 a sizable share of eligible Americans did not vote and that Trump’s support represented less than half of ballots cast. It concludes that the true challenge for Newsom is not just securing the nomination, but mobilizing disaffected and disengaged voters who may otherwise sit out another election. Different views on the topic In contrast to the column’s mixed assessment of the impact of leaving office, several national reports emphasize that Newsom’s looming exit from the governor’s mansion raises serious questions about how his California record will play outside the state. Analyses from Associated Press and CNN note that his association with California’s high costs, homelessness and liberal reputation could be a major liability in a national race, reinforcing perceptions of him as a “San Francisco liberal” that opponents may weaponize in a primary or general election.[8][9] While the article casts Newsom’s prospects as highly uncertain, some political coverage depicts him as an early front‑runner in the Democratic “shadow primary,” arguing that his confrontations with Trump and prominent role in ballot fights have significantly boosted his national standing. Reporting in The Hill and the Los Angeles Times describes Newsom as one of Democrats’ top 2028 prospects, with early polling placing him at or near the top of hypothetical primary fields and showing solid name recognition among Democratic voters.[3][1][7] By contrast, other commentary stresses that structural and geographic factors may undercut the column’s suggestion that Newsom can simply leverage his anti‑Trump profile into a winning national message. Several pieces highlight how California has historically been a mixed launching pad for presidential hopefuls, citing past failures by governors such as Pete Wilson and noting that Newsom must overcome skepticism toward big‑state, coastal politicians in key Midwestern and Southern battlegrounds.[8][9] The column suggests that Newsom’s left‑leaning policy rhetoric on issues such as universal health coverage might tap rising frustration and a potential populist wave within the Democratic Party, yet polling and prediction‑market analyses present a more cautious view of his appeal. Recent national surveys and market data summarized by Newsweek and The Hill show Newsom leading or competitive in some early Democratic primary soundings, but not dominating the field, with figures like Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez still matching or surpassing his support among certain voter blocs.[7][3][6] Additionally, some coverage directly challenges the idea that Newsom’s ideological positioning resolves questions about electability, arguing that he remains squeezed between factions. Pieces from CNN and AP report that advisers and critics alike worry he is vulnerable to attacks from both the left and the center: progressives may doubt his commitment given his ties to business interests, while moderates may recoil from proposals that resemble democratic socialist priorities, complicating his effort to occupy a coherent national lane.[8][2] Finally, whereas the column focuses on threats to democracy and turnout as the decisive test for Newsom, several reports highlight more personal and practical hurdles. Interviews with Newsom covered by NBC News and CNN stress his own uncertainty about running, his insistence that “fate” and family considerations will shape his decision, and his acknowledgment that he is unsure whether he would be a good president, all of which fuel narratives that his ambitions are real but his path — and level of commitment — remain unsettled.[5][4][6]