2 states, 1 tepid view of Kamala Harris and her political future
ANAHEIM, California — In South Carolina, influential Democrats this weekend were hardly talking about Kamala Harris anymore. In California, they greeted the thought of her political future with impatience and weary sighs.
The former vice president has kept campaign junkies guessing as she contemplates running for California governor or taking another shot at the White House in 2028. But party members on opposite coasts, who gathered for simultaneous confabs this weekend, did not express much clamor for either iteration of a Harris candidacy.
Some Democrats in South Carolina, girding for battle to retain their favored status on the presidential primary calendar, went so far as to suggest that a run for California governor could offer a graceful exit from the national stage.
'I think she should run for governor and be the best governor California has ever had,' said Amanda Loveday, a Democratic strategist and former executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party.
And in her home state, some Democrats openly fretted that California was simply a fallback option for Harris after her presidential ambitions were thwarted last year.
'We haven't really heard from her on California issues since Trump's inauguration,' said Madison Zimmerman, a state party delegate from rural Shasta County. 'I feel like California isn't a consolation prize.'
The gatherings in Anaheim and Columbia were separated by nearly 2,500 miles but could both be enormously significant to Harris' future — California as the state she may seek to govern and South Carolina as the early primary state that would loom large in any 2028 presidential campaign.
Harris, one of the Democratic Party's best-known national figures after her whirlwind presidential run last year, remains a formidable figure in the party. She leads in polls for California governor and sits at or near the top of contenders in recent surveys of the nascent 2028 field. Even as she keeps a low-profile after her bruising loss to President Donald Trump, she has commanded attention for her sporadic speeches and cameos at cultural soirees like the Met Gala.
That star power far outshines the declared candidates for California governor, and Harris, should she get into the race, would immediately catapult to frontrunner status, given her stature and fundraising chops.
'If you're doing the sports-betting analogy, the odds are in her favor, she's got the big point spread,' said Roger Salazar, a Democratic strategist who is unaffiliated with any gubernatorial campaign. 'The name ID, the fact she's won [multiple] times in California already — that track record is one that's hard to duplicate for others jumping into the race.'
'It really depends on — what is it she wants to do? Does she want to be governor?' he added.
That was the immediate question that came to mind for Carol Weiss, a delegate from Sunnyvale, when assessing the potential governor's race field at this weekend's California Democratic Party convention.
'My concern about Harris is that she would be using the position, if she won, as a placeholder for a second run at the presidency,' she said. 'And that would make me feel like I'm wasting my vote. I want a strong governor for at least four years.'
Harris, who was in Australia last week to speak at a real estate conference, did not appear at the convention. She sent in a brief video address which was greeted with warm, but not protracted, applause from the audience. A spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Harris' shadow nevertheless loomed over the Anaheim convention center as gubernatorial hopefuls hoofed to various caucus meetings and grip-and-grins with 4,000 or so of the party's most dedicated activists and officials. Most attendees acknowledged that the contours of the governor's race will remain undefined until Harris makes up her mind: Major donors have stayed on the sidelines, most labor unions and interest groups are holding off endorsements and some candidates are quietly gaming out back-up plans to run for other offices if Harris decides to run.
Amid that uncertainty, Democrats were perceptibly antsy for Harris to declare her intentions one way or another.
'You see the other candidates — they're here, they're talking, they're doing their thing. And I think that people are receptive to that because they realize that you really need someone who can jump in and is really interested in doing this,' said David Campos, vice chair of the state party and former chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party.
Campos, who has known Harris for years from the rough-and-tumble San Francisco political scene, predicted that Harris would be a 'formidable' contender. But among party faithful, he said, there was not a desire for any candidate to have a coronation.
'People want to have a campaign, an election,' he said.
Lorena Gonzalez, who leads the powerful California Labor Federation, said she has also not heard much desire for Harris to clear the field, and she's detected a perceptible change among candidates the longer the vice president takes to declare her intentions. (Harris has given herself a deadline of late summer to make up her mind.)
'There's some frustration from both the candidates and activists: What's gonna happen? Is Kamala going to get in? Should I pick a favored candidate? Who's gonna stay in if Kamala gets in, who's not?' Gonzalez said. 'And I think that's shifting. More candidates are looking at staying in, and the longer that this waits, you'll see more candidates actually stay in the race.'
There were still dedicated Harris supporters to be found in Anaheim, such as Ingrid Hutt, an entrepreneur and sister of Los Angeles City Councilmember Heather Hutt, who declared herself '10 toes down and ready to go' to support the former vice president.
Hutt said she was eager for Harris, as a gubernatorial candidate, 'to have the respect that she should have had in the presidential race. [I'm ready] for her to come home and lead our state.'
She added, 'Other Democrats in the state of California should get out of the way.'
Still, others who professed fondness for the former vice president appeared queasy about the prospect of her having a glide-path to the governor's mansion.
'I'm really on the fence,' said Minola Clark Manson, a delegate from eastern San Diego County. 'I probably would vote for Kamala Harris but there would be an underlying discomfort.'
The gatherings in Anaheim and Columbia featured at least one thing in common: appearances by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who appeared on the Democratic ticket with Harris last year and is widely seen as a potential presidential contender in 2028.
Hitting both conventions in one marathon travel day on Saturday, Walz spoke glowingly in both states of his time campaigning with Harris, praising her as 'talented' and 'accomplished.'
But in South Carolina, aside from a glancing reference from former Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison about the accomplishments of the previous administration, there was no mention of Harris among the Democrats in attendance without prompting.
'Does she want it?' Wayne Borders, a progressive activist based in Columbia, asked pointedly in response to a question about her 2028 prospects. A serious candidate, he said, would 'come tell me why' they were seeking the job.
Sam Skardon, the former Charleston County Democratic Party chair, said he did not think voters in his party would hold Harris' loss last year against her.
'I think people understand that this was not a full and fair shot of hers at the White House, and if she wanted to take another one, I don't think we'd be mad at her for it,' he said.
Skardon added that anyone who served in the Biden administration may be hampered by the former president's tarnished legacy.
He said, 'I don't think anyone expects the party to clear the field for her in 2028. I don't think there's any thought that she has a right to the nomination above anyone else.'
Some Democrats in the crowd said that if Harris did run, they would welcome it. Michelle Brandt, the former third vice chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said that a Harris presidential bid would be 'exciting.'
But she said she was more concerned that Harris take time to regroup after her last campaign.
'I'm sure that it was extremely stressful,' Brandt said. 'So I just think of her well-being, not that she can't do it. I just want her to rest.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
West Wing Civil War Erupts Over Who Caused Trump-Musk Explosion
A top White House aide nursing a grudge against Elon Musk is being partly blamed for igniting President Donald Trump's war with the Tesla CEO. Sergio Gor, the White House director of presidential personnel, urged Trump to rescind his nomination for Musk's personal friend Jared Isaacman to lead NASA, sparking a rift between the president and the world's richest man that erupted in public Thursday, the New York Post reported. 'The NASA guy was the straw that broke the camel's back,' a White House source told the Post, suggesting that Gor wanted 'to bury the knife in [Musk's] back.' Four sources inside or close to the White House told the outlet that Gor, 38, has been holding a grudge against Musk, 53, ever since the billionaire 'humiliated' him in front of the Trump Cabinet for not moving fast enough on staffing the administration. 'Sergio was upset about Elon dressing him down at the meeting and said he was going to 'get him,'' another source said. '[Pulling Isaacman's nomination] was the modern-day equivalent of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Sure, Sergio got a scalp, but what did POTUS get?' Gor reportedly developed a deep personal dislike of Musk while the tech mogul was still on friendly terms with Trump, and gleefully celebrated dips in Musk's wealth when Tesla stock plunged, according to three of the sources. 'He'd go around showing Tesla stock prices going down and laugh about it,' one White House source told the Post. The outlet said Gor denied taking pleasure in Tesla's falling stock or ever seeking revenge against Musk. Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon backed up Gor, saying the Trump-Musk feud had been simmering for months over issues like Musk's opposition to Trump's tariff strategy. 'Did Elon have a problem with Sergio?' Bannon, a longtime Musk antagonist told the Post. 'Yes, the fact that we are not hiring enough—guess what—liberal f---ing progressive Democrats.' He argued Trump engaged in the bitter spat because he's 'upset' over Musk's failure to deliver significant savings at DOGE and his reported drug use. Yet, Trump and Musk heaped praise on each other at a congenial send-off last Friday, following the conclusion of Musk's term as a special advisor. It wasn't until Trump withdrew Isaacman's nomination shortly after Musk—his biggest financial backer in 2024—left the White House, that the billionaire launched a sharp attack on the president's cherished 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' in an X post on Tuesday. The Trump administration has cited Isaacman's past donations to Democrats as the reason for Trump rescinding his nomination just days before his Senate confirmation. But Isaacman, another billionaire in Trumpworld, questioned that explanation, noting his donations have long been public knowledge. 'I don't blame an influential adviser coming in and saying, 'Look, here's the facts, and I think we should kill this guy,'' Isaacman said on the All-In podcast Wednesday. 'And the president's got to make a call and move on.' For now, it seems the administration is sticking with Gor. The Post said that White House Communications Director Steven Cheung called Gor 'a vital member of the team and he has helped President Trump put together an administration that is second to none.' One source close to the White House speculated, however, that Gor could become the fall guy and help mend the Trump-Musk relationship—if Musk can be convinced that the president was merely being 'played' by Gor.

an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .