CA-Gov. This race is effectively frozen because of Harris's indecision. Fundraising is frozen, donors, campaign people and staff, downballot races, everything. Waiting to the end of summer to decide is ludicrous, and is becoming disrespectful of her fellow downballot Democrats who need a lot of time to prepare for a CA statewide campaign.
CA-Gov. This race is effectively frozen because of Harris's indecision. Fundraising is frozen, donors, campaign people and staff, downballot races, everything. Waiting to the end of summer to decide is ludicrous, and is becoming disrespectful of her fellow downballot Democrats who need a lot of time to prepare for a CA statewide campaign.
If Harris is in, it's 99% likely she wins. I have no expectations that she'll be some great governor. And most likely Trump would delight on doubling-down and tripling-down on screwing over California in his last 2 years.
To me, the only good thing about her running for CA Gov. is it probably keeps her out of a certain 2028 contest.
CA Democrats are showing no spine. From Attorney General Rob Bonta to more Democrats and donors, I think they ought to, while they have the chance, clean up CA now instead of thinking Harris will take them to the Moon.
We CA residents need a race, not an anointment. If Harris runs for Governor, clearing the field makes Democrats look stupid here. She should be competing with fellow Democratic Candidates, not having the race to herself.
All this is true but if Kamala actually wants to fix California, she'd have a much easier time doing it as she could pressure the NIMBYs and luddites of the legislature more than any other politician.
I agree. Harris is far more intelligent than she is given credit for. She I believe would also pay closer attention to detail than Newsom would.
That said, my issue has mainly to do with the primary process, not criticizing Harris and her potential candidacy.
That said, I am intrigued at State Senator Toni Atkins’ candidacy far more than Harris. She has a history of fighting for the little guy and grew up in a blue collar family in the Appalachia near West Virginia.
I don't really see what the problem is here. Since Harris has universal name ID and extensive CA statewide campaign experience, she has earned the luxury of taking her time. It hasn't even been six months since the end of the presidential campaign, give the woman a break!
Plus, it's a top two system. All she does is take one of the spots in the primary, that still gives the rest of the field the chance to gun for the second spot and lock out the Republicans.
The problem is not Harris but CA Democrats and their push for Harris to either jump in the race or have her decide what to do. It makes the whole race not really one where us CA residents get to decide who we want to represent us, especially considering we want to move on from Newsom.
We’ve had multiple gubernatorial candidates, plenty of fresh faces and interesting candidates already declare their candidacies. Then when the hoopla comes in with Harris being considered to run for governor, Democrats like Attorney General Rob Bonta are already arguing she’s be field clearing before Harris has had a chance to think for herself and process after losing the 2024 presidential election.
I completely agree about giving Harris a break. But the CA Democratic Party machine and donors aren’t doing that.
The quotes from her potential competitors in the linked article came off as whiny bullcrap to me. Like, there's an 800-pound gorilla in the room, you were all aware of that when you entered the room, deal with it.
Ever since Gray Davis was recalled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, all Democrats who have been elected have been high profile figures as opposed to those who built their name brand from their individual gubernatorial races.
Jerry Brown - Elected in 2011 and re-elected in 2014
Gavin Newsom - Elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2022.
If Harris enters the gubernatorial race, she’s be the third high profile Democrat in a row to be elected.
"Harris is far more intelligent than she is given credit for." Really? People think she is dumb, or not that smart? On what basis? Isn't she a brilliant prosecutor?
The GOP, Joe Rogan and others of their kind have since the 2024 presidential election viewed Harris as dumb. It’s their perception from what they have seen her act like in her presidential campaign.
However, Harris has beaten Mike Pence and Trump at the debates and is more focused when she governs. The critics have a one-sided view that doesn’t give voters the full picture of who Harris is.
In other words, racist, sexist Republicans have tried to slur an obviously brilliant prosecutor as stupid. I don't think that makes her "far more intelligent than she is given credit for."
Actually, there was one explanation I neglected to mention:
Regarding Harris’s intelligence, what I’ve observed is that she learns quickly and is being mindful of where the Democratic Party base’s general direction is going.
As an example, when she was District Attorney in San Francisco, she divided the black community for being too hard line in how she prosecuted cases where defendants were black. However, when she was a US Senator, Harris became more socially conscious about the issues facing black people.
I myself have in Berkeley and Oakland run into multiple critics of her time as DA (most of them happen to be black) but what I felt they weren’t aware of was that Harris really didn’t have control over the criminal Justice reform agenda. She had to prosecute and uphold the law in as fair of a manner as she could. I think Harris was being too unfairly criticized for her time as DA and not being looked at as someone who does think about others besides herself.
For the criticism of Harris and the attacks on her as you point out, it’s mainly the image that’s projected about her and what Rogan, Trump, the GOP and others in their boat do to add to the cesspool.
I think so although I don’t know much about the specific cases Harris took on as DA that her critics referenced. They likely had to do with murder and theft crimes where the defendants in this case were black.
When I am referring to the criminal Justice reform agenda in Harris’ case as DA, she didn’t have control over things legislatively. When she was a US Senator, far more so. DAs do have a say on the cases they take on but they can’t legislate.
Americans despise losing democratic presidential candidates as a default. This happens to losing republican candidates too, but their party suffers from far less self-flagellation so the issue is less pronounced.
I think if you asked the typical person off the street what they thought of Harris, not much of it would be good. They would rate her intelligence and skills poorly because she lost.
I feel Americans have a strong ingrained need for people to get what they deserve. Thus, if someone got something, we like to believe that they deserved that thing. If a candidate lost, they deserved to lose, and many people will apply the characteristics that "earn" defeat to that losing candidate even if the reasons for defeat were something else entirely.
If Harris can defeat the perception of the critics and cynics because of her losing presidential campaign, then being Governor of California by contrast is a better opportunity than being POTUS.
My hope is that if Harris runs in the gubernatorial race she campaigns everywhere, not just LA or San Francisco.
Examples include but are not limited Clayton, Danville, Fresno, Redding and other parts of California that are more conservative, competitive or even far from reach for Democrats. I’d like to see a real gubernatorial campaign that isn’t just about appeasing the Democratic Party base but expanding on it.
Redding is less red than the rest of CA-01, which is representatives by Rep. Doug LaMalfa. Coincidentally, it’s where Lucasfilm Producer Kathleen Kennedy grew up.
Most of the right wing influence comes from the overwhelming white population. There is a decent Hispanic population though.
I do know that the city is less practically appealing for Harris to campaign in compared to the other examples I suggested. However, since CA is a big state and red regions these days are more distant than the rest of the state’s growing demographics, I believe it’s still a good idea to to campaign in cities like Redding even if it would be done on a limited basis.
Harris does need to primarily focus on turning out voters where they traditionally have been blue or swingy.
I don't understand your first paragraph. Do you mean sort of the converse: that being governor of California would give Harris a better opportunity to change the perception of critics than being president?
Harris running for Governor would be easier for her to manage than a presidential campaign for the following reasons:
-If she were the nominee, there’d be no doubt she would win the gubernatorial election. I don’t think any Democrat would dispute that.
-She’s already have the Democratic Party machine behind her and has, in her option, the ability to expand her reach in campaigning in areas of CA that are more competitive turf or not as friendly to Democrats. Doing so would not harm her candidacy but instead solidify her support.
Examples: Bakersfield, Clayton, Danville, Fresno, Redding, and swing areas in say Orange County.
I’d also add in Hercules, Rodeo and Pittsburg, cities that aren’t typically frequented by leading gubernatorial candidates. They are blue turf but also should be listed too, not just say San Jose; San Francisco and Los Angeles.
-Besides being Governor during Trump’s 2nd term, Harris can also have the opportunity to serve in the role and have less pressure than if she were POTUS. Not arguing being Governor doesn’t have challenges but if Harris is leading a blue state, her opportunity in this case would be to show how she’s different than Newsom.
If Harris can change the perception on how she’s viewed by being better than Newsom, then she’s in a better position to do more with her agenda. She’s also have the option of serving two terms, which would mean she’s serve not just while Trump is POTUS but after he leaves the White House.
Bottom line - Harris’ presidential campaign, while short, makes her more prepared for a gubernatorial campaign, even if it would be easier for her to win an election.
Two recent articles—one from The New York Times and another from Vanity Fair—suggest that Kamala Harris is more interested in the California gubernatorial race than 2028. She has reportedly been meeting with political strategists and thinkers such as David Shor and Ezra Klein (the "abundance" advocate of California) to better understand the Democratic Party’s current challenges and what went wrong in recent cycles.
Harris is said to have looked on in "horror" at the implementation of Project 2025 and is carefully considering her next move. She is hesitant to immediately enter the race, wary of making the California Gov post appear as a "rebound" relationship and being mocked for it. The reporting also notes her disappointment with how Governor Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass handled the recent wildfire crises.
In a humorous twist, the article concludes with former President Donald Trump reportedly encouraging her to run but to do more interviews this time. Also, I don't think that the digs would have any effect on her, longtime politicians like her obviously have a thick skin.
Honestly, I sort of like the idea of her getting the chance to launch more rhetorical nukes at him. (I really wish there had been a second debate, not that it would have changed the outcome most likely.)
We haven't gotten to that point yet. But Nixon lost a close presidential election as the sitting VP, also happened to be running to succeed a president widely seen as too old, and immediately ran for governor of California in the next midterm.
That PLUS Sputnik. The fact that Sputnik happened under a Republican President gave us Democrats a MAJOR opportunity to say that we had to "catch up to Russia." No Sputnik, JFK doesn't get to run in 1960 claiming that we had a "missile gap" with the USSR. My favorite President was hardly a peacenik.
Because my fellow Bay Stater was the President closest to me in terms of ideology. Socially liberal and fiscally moderate and not afraid to use force when necessary. He was also ahead of his time and recognized that in order to keep Africa and Asia from turning towards Communism, the USA needed to be seen as supporting nationalist movements for independence. He also was pro transportation and pro disability rights, well before it was popular.
More than any specific policies, Kennedy encompassed the qualities that go into making a great president. Coolness, ability to detach and to admit and learn from mistakes, a sense and knowledge of history, self-depreciation, wit and an ability to communicate without resorting to rank demagoguery.
Ike left office as the oldest sitting president up to that point and Kennedy ran on his youth and vigor. It wasn't Biden level of age concern, but it was absolutely a factor.
This is all really interesting because what I've heard about Eisenhower always is that he was supremely popular and a very talented campaigner. I guess no-one had really focused on the latter part of his second term. But considering how extremely close the 1960 election was, don't all of you think Eisenhower would have won if he had been Constitutionally able to run again and chose to do so?
Not to mention Nixon was only four years older than Kennedy. They were both elected to Congress in 1946 and were actually pretty close until 1960. Either of them would have been the first US President born in the 20th century. Which was a absolute BFD at the time.
Joseph P Kennedy Sr donated $1,000 to Nixon's first Senate run in 1950. He even told Nixon in 1960 "if (the Democratic nominee) is not my boy, I'm for you." Then again JFK referred to his father's politics as "to the right of Herbert Hoover."
CA-Gov. This race is effectively frozen because of Harris's indecision. Fundraising is frozen, donors, campaign people and staff, downballot races, everything. Waiting to the end of summer to decide is ludicrous, and is becoming disrespectful of her fellow downballot Democrats who need a lot of time to prepare for a CA statewide campaign.
If Harris is in, it's 99% likely she wins. I have no expectations that she'll be some great governor. And most likely Trump would delight on doubling-down and tripling-down on screwing over California in his last 2 years.
To me, the only good thing about her running for CA Gov. is it probably keeps her out of a certain 2028 contest.
Democrats running for California governor take digs at Kamala Harris’ delayed decision on the race https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-04-10/democrats-running-for-california-governor-take-digs-at-kamala-harris-delayed-decision-on-the-race
CA Democrats are showing no spine. From Attorney General Rob Bonta to more Democrats and donors, I think they ought to, while they have the chance, clean up CA now instead of thinking Harris will take them to the Moon.
We CA residents need a race, not an anointment. If Harris runs for Governor, clearing the field makes Democrats look stupid here. She should be competing with fellow Democratic Candidates, not having the race to herself.
All this is true but if Kamala actually wants to fix California, she'd have a much easier time doing it as she could pressure the NIMBYs and luddites of the legislature more than any other politician.
I agree. Harris is far more intelligent than she is given credit for. She I believe would also pay closer attention to detail than Newsom would.
That said, my issue has mainly to do with the primary process, not criticizing Harris and her potential candidacy.
That said, I am intrigued at State Senator Toni Atkins’ candidacy far more than Harris. She has a history of fighting for the little guy and grew up in a blue collar family in the Appalachia near West Virginia.
Atkins actually went to my alma mater, Emory & Henry, in southwestern Virginia.
Nice! I share an alma mater with one of JFK's (actually ghostwriter Ted Sorensen's) profiles in courage: Senator George W. Norris.
(I also share it with Ohio LG Jim Tressel, but I'm much less proud of that fact.)
I don't really see what the problem is here. Since Harris has universal name ID and extensive CA statewide campaign experience, she has earned the luxury of taking her time. It hasn't even been six months since the end of the presidential campaign, give the woman a break!
^This.
And if she's somehow "freezing" the race, that's more a testament to the weakness of the rest of the field than anything else.
Plus, it's a top two system. All she does is take one of the spots in the primary, that still gives the rest of the field the chance to gun for the second spot and lock out the Republicans.
We’re talking this early in the gubernatorial race and only six months after Harris lost the presidential race.
Kind of premature considering the rest of the gubernatorial candidates have barely had a chance to campaign and get their name out.
The problem is not Harris but CA Democrats and their push for Harris to either jump in the race or have her decide what to do. It makes the whole race not really one where us CA residents get to decide who we want to represent us, especially considering we want to move on from Newsom.
We’ve had multiple gubernatorial candidates, plenty of fresh faces and interesting candidates already declare their candidacies. Then when the hoopla comes in with Harris being considered to run for governor, Democrats like Attorney General Rob Bonta are already arguing she’s be field clearing before Harris has had a chance to think for herself and process after losing the 2024 presidential election.
I completely agree about giving Harris a break. But the CA Democratic Party machine and donors aren’t doing that.
Gotcha, I think we're on the same page.
The quotes from her potential competitors in the linked article came off as whiny bullcrap to me. Like, there's an 800-pound gorilla in the room, you were all aware of that when you entered the room, deal with it.
Consider this:
Ever since Gray Davis was recalled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, all Democrats who have been elected have been high profile figures as opposed to those who built their name brand from their individual gubernatorial races.
Jerry Brown - Elected in 2011 and re-elected in 2014
Gavin Newsom - Elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2022.
If Harris enters the gubernatorial race, she’s be the third high profile Democrat in a row to be elected.
"Harris is far more intelligent than she is given credit for." Really? People think she is dumb, or not that smart? On what basis? Isn't she a brilliant prosecutor?
The GOP, Joe Rogan and others of their kind have since the 2024 presidential election viewed Harris as dumb. It’s their perception from what they have seen her act like in her presidential campaign.
However, Harris has beaten Mike Pence and Trump at the debates and is more focused when she governs. The critics have a one-sided view that doesn’t give voters the full picture of who Harris is.
In other words, racist, sexist Republicans have tried to slur an obviously brilliant prosecutor as stupid. I don't think that makes her "far more intelligent than she is given credit for."
Actually, there was one explanation I neglected to mention:
Regarding Harris’s intelligence, what I’ve observed is that she learns quickly and is being mindful of where the Democratic Party base’s general direction is going.
As an example, when she was District Attorney in San Francisco, she divided the black community for being too hard line in how she prosecuted cases where defendants were black. However, when she was a US Senator, Harris became more socially conscious about the issues facing black people.
I myself have in Berkeley and Oakland run into multiple critics of her time as DA (most of them happen to be black) but what I felt they weren’t aware of was that Harris really didn’t have control over the criminal Justice reform agenda. She had to prosecute and uphold the law in as fair of a manner as she could. I think Harris was being too unfairly criticized for her time as DA and not being looked at as someone who does think about others besides herself.
For the criticism of Harris and the attacks on her as you point out, it’s mainly the image that’s projected about her and what Rogan, Trump, the GOP and others in their boat do to add to the cesspool.
Don't prosecutors have a great deal of control over which cases they prosecute and how?
I think so although I don’t know much about the specific cases Harris took on as DA that her critics referenced. They likely had to do with murder and theft crimes where the defendants in this case were black.
When I am referring to the criminal Justice reform agenda in Harris’ case as DA, she didn’t have control over things legislatively. When she was a US Senator, far more so. DAs do have a say on the cases they take on but they can’t legislate.
I think everyone understands that DAs can't legislate, but that doesn't make them powerless in their conduct.
Americans despise losing democratic presidential candidates as a default. This happens to losing republican candidates too, but their party suffers from far less self-flagellation so the issue is less pronounced.
I think if you asked the typical person off the street what they thought of Harris, not much of it would be good. They would rate her intelligence and skills poorly because she lost.
I feel Americans have a strong ingrained need for people to get what they deserve. Thus, if someone got something, we like to believe that they deserved that thing. If a candidate lost, they deserved to lose, and many people will apply the characteristics that "earn" defeat to that losing candidate even if the reasons for defeat were something else entirely.
If Harris can defeat the perception of the critics and cynics because of her losing presidential campaign, then being Governor of California by contrast is a better opportunity than being POTUS.
My hope is that if Harris runs in the gubernatorial race she campaigns everywhere, not just LA or San Francisco.
Examples include but are not limited Clayton, Danville, Fresno, Redding and other parts of California that are more conservative, competitive or even far from reach for Democrats. I’d like to see a real gubernatorial campaign that isn’t just about appeasing the Democratic Party base but expanding on it.
Redding is really right-wing and also far from other places. I don't know if campaigning there would be a good use of a Democrat's time.
Redding is less red than the rest of CA-01, which is representatives by Rep. Doug LaMalfa. Coincidentally, it’s where Lucasfilm Producer Kathleen Kennedy grew up.
Most of the right wing influence comes from the overwhelming white population. There is a decent Hispanic population though.
I do know that the city is less practically appealing for Harris to campaign in compared to the other examples I suggested. However, since CA is a big state and red regions these days are more distant than the rest of the state’s growing demographics, I believe it’s still a good idea to to campaign in cities like Redding even if it would be done on a limited basis.
Harris does need to primarily focus on turning out voters where they traditionally have been blue or swingy.
I take your point.
I don't understand your first paragraph. Do you mean sort of the converse: that being governor of California would give Harris a better opportunity to change the perception of critics than being president?
Harris running for Governor would be easier for her to manage than a presidential campaign for the following reasons:
-If she were the nominee, there’d be no doubt she would win the gubernatorial election. I don’t think any Democrat would dispute that.
-She’s already have the Democratic Party machine behind her and has, in her option, the ability to expand her reach in campaigning in areas of CA that are more competitive turf or not as friendly to Democrats. Doing so would not harm her candidacy but instead solidify her support.
Examples: Bakersfield, Clayton, Danville, Fresno, Redding, and swing areas in say Orange County.
I’d also add in Hercules, Rodeo and Pittsburg, cities that aren’t typically frequented by leading gubernatorial candidates. They are blue turf but also should be listed too, not just say San Jose; San Francisco and Los Angeles.
-Besides being Governor during Trump’s 2nd term, Harris can also have the opportunity to serve in the role and have less pressure than if she were POTUS. Not arguing being Governor doesn’t have challenges but if Harris is leading a blue state, her opportunity in this case would be to show how she’s different than Newsom.
If Harris can change the perception on how she’s viewed by being better than Newsom, then she’s in a better position to do more with her agenda. She’s also have the option of serving two terms, which would mean she’s serve not just while Trump is POTUS but after he leaves the White House.
Bottom line - Harris’ presidential campaign, while short, makes her more prepared for a gubernatorial campaign, even if it would be easier for her to win an election.
I'm guessing she's not running because she plans a 2028 prez race
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/kamala-harris-president-california-governor.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kamala-harriss-next-moves-a-big-speech-a-bigger-book-and-perhaps-a-run-for-office?srsltid=AfmBOoqIP1RP1m6PbeaSXJ0eH1Am1urgbvXO0S3YWBQetGZRvMVNEFTS
Two recent articles—one from The New York Times and another from Vanity Fair—suggest that Kamala Harris is more interested in the California gubernatorial race than 2028. She has reportedly been meeting with political strategists and thinkers such as David Shor and Ezra Klein (the "abundance" advocate of California) to better understand the Democratic Party’s current challenges and what went wrong in recent cycles.
Harris is said to have looked on in "horror" at the implementation of Project 2025 and is carefully considering her next move. She is hesitant to immediately enter the race, wary of making the California Gov post appear as a "rebound" relationship and being mocked for it. The reporting also notes her disappointment with how Governor Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass handled the recent wildfire crises.
In a humorous twist, the article concludes with former President Donald Trump reportedly encouraging her to run but to do more interviews this time. Also, I don't think that the digs would have any effect on her, longtime politicians like her obviously have a thick skin.
Honestly, I sort of like the idea of her getting the chance to launch more rhetorical nukes at him. (I really wish there had been a second debate, not that it would have changed the outcome most likely.)
I knew Harris was going to destroy Trump at the presidential debate. Debating Mike Pence, by contrast, was more of a warm up for her.
Eh, Trump is going to screw over California (and the rest of the country) regardless of who's in Sacramento.
So has the obvious Nixon comparison come up yet? I've been away from this stuff for a while.
Did Harris ever say they didn't have her to kick around anymore?
We haven't gotten to that point yet. But Nixon lost a close presidential election as the sitting VP, also happened to be running to succeed a president widely seen as too old, and immediately ran for governor of California in the next midterm.
I've never heard that Eisenhower was widely seen as too old.
The issue was we were in a recession in the late 1950s and Sputnik was a MAJOR blow. The Republican Party in 1958 wasn’t clobbered for nothing.
1958 was really about the recession that year. It was the first real bad one since the depression.
That PLUS Sputnik. The fact that Sputnik happened under a Republican President gave us Democrats a MAJOR opportunity to say that we had to "catch up to Russia." No Sputnik, JFK doesn't get to run in 1960 claiming that we had a "missile gap" with the USSR. My favorite President was hardly a peacenik.
Kennedy is your favorite president? Why?
Because my fellow Bay Stater was the President closest to me in terms of ideology. Socially liberal and fiscally moderate and not afraid to use force when necessary. He was also ahead of his time and recognized that in order to keep Africa and Asia from turning towards Communism, the USA needed to be seen as supporting nationalist movements for independence. He also was pro transportation and pro disability rights, well before it was popular.
More than any specific policies, Kennedy encompassed the qualities that go into making a great president. Coolness, ability to detach and to admit and learn from mistakes, a sense and knowledge of history, self-depreciation, wit and an ability to communicate without resorting to rank demagoguery.
Ike left office as the oldest sitting president up to that point and Kennedy ran on his youth and vigor. It wasn't Biden level of age concern, but it was absolutely a factor.
This is all really interesting because what I've heard about Eisenhower always is that he was supremely popular and a very talented campaigner. I guess no-one had really focused on the latter part of his second term. But considering how extremely close the 1960 election was, don't all of you think Eisenhower would have won if he had been Constitutionally able to run again and chose to do so?
Not to mention Nixon was only four years older than Kennedy. They were both elected to Congress in 1946 and were actually pretty close until 1960. Either of them would have been the first US President born in the 20th century. Which was a absolute BFD at the time.
Close, as in friends?
Friends might be a strong word but they got on quite well before 1960, yes
Joseph P Kennedy Sr donated $1,000 to Nixon's first Senate run in 1950. He even told Nixon in 1960 "if (the Democratic nominee) is not my boy, I'm for you." Then again JFK referred to his father's politics as "to the right of Herbert Hoover."
Eisenhower was in very poor health by his second term. He had multiple heart attacks and had surgery due to Crohn''s disease.
What do you think Harris would do and not do as Governor, if she were to win?