Tick tock, Kamala — California's getting tired of waiting
Tribune News Service
California is not a consolation prize for losing the presidency, and a Kamala Harris run for governor isn't going to inspire an electorate that is fed up with the Democratic Party's staid-and-afraid status quo. That being said, if Harris is going to run for governor of California — good God, get on with it already. The former Vice President recently set an unofficial deadline to announce by 'the end of summer' — but wasn't specific about a particular date. (What exactly is the 'end of summer,' anyway? The last 100-degree day? The last pitch of an MLB game? When they stop serving Aperol spritzes at Ella?) But these 'will she or won't she' games belong to a homecoming queen race, not a gubernatorial one.
'I could make all sorts of arguments for her and why she should and could do any number of other things,' Brian Brokaw, a Democratic political consultant who served as the manager for Harris' successful campaigns for California Attorney General and for Senate. '(But) if there's one thing I know about her, it's that she doesn't care what the rest of us think. She is going to make up her own mind.' Fair point. But I'm pretty sure running for political office means you have to care a teeny tiny bit about what other people think of you.
The most recent numbers look good for Harris, anyway: A new poll by UC Irvine's School of Social Ecology recently showed some good news for a Harris campaign, with 24% of respondents saying they'd vote for her over any other declared or rumored candidates. She fared even better when pitted against literally any potential Republican — 41% to just 29%. (Sad trombone noises. It's still California, after all.)
But there were a concerning number of respondents to that same poll, 40%, who said they're not yet sure who they'd vote for to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. That's an awful lot of votes left on the table, and Harris has not habitually fared well with undecided voters. And, the disillusionment of California voters with the Democratic Party starts with the humiliating loss last November — for which Harris is the poster child. 'There's a torrent of discontent in the (Democratic) party,' Mike Madrid, a former political director for the California Republican Party who is currently consulting for Stephen Cloobeck, a time-share billionaire and outsider Democratic candidate who is running for California governor in 2026.
'They want a different message and messenger,' Madrid said. '(California is) disaffected by the majority party ... It's materialising as low voter turnout, or being civically-engaged at all. They don't believe that the Democratic Party is doing anything to benefit them, (and) I think the elected politicians are having a hard time gaining traction.' So I see why some Republicans must be salivating at the idea of another Harris run in California. They beat her once already, though doing it again in her home state that went blue by 58% would be significantly more difficult.
Meanwhile, top Dems who have already declared their intentions — including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former state Controller Betty Yee and state schools Superintendent Tony Thurmond would likely step aside if Harris finally pulled the trigger on a run. But neither has Harris' possible inclusion totally cleared the field: Former Attorney General Xavier Becerra and former mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa have said they would stay in the race, regardless. And both former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter and former state Senate leader Toni Atkins recently announced they'd stay in, too; the latter saying in a statement that, 'while the vice president has her own path, our campaign is moving full speed ahead.'
In fact, I think some of them are actually hoping she will, so they can bow out of the race gracefully without looking like they fumbled the bag in announcing too soon. (Lookin' at you, Eleni!) If Harris was going to throw her hat in the ring, she should have done it by now to try and capitalize on some of the anger that Californians felt in the immediate aftermath of the last election. Now we're just tired and sad, and neither of those emotions is a great start for a candidate, even if 'real human beings' attentions aren't yet on the November 2026 race.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
Musk Steps Back from Political Party Plans to Prioritise Business Focus
Elon Musk has reportedly suspended his ambitious plans to create a new political party, instead shifting his attention back to his array of business ventures. According to the Wall Street Journal, sources close to the billionaire entrepreneur have confirmed that Musk now intends to focus on his companies, including Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter, which recently rebranded as X. The idea of a new political movement was first floated by Musk earlier this year, capturing the attention of both supporters and critics alike. Musk, known for his outspoken views on social and political issues, had indicated that he might form a third-party alternative to the established two-party system in the United States. His move was seen as an extension of his controversial influence on public discourse and his desire to shape political discussions. However, behind the scenes, Musk's commitment to launching the new party has reportedly faltered. The Wall Street Journal's sources suggest that Musk became increasingly aware of the complexities involved in starting a national political party, especially one that would compete against the entrenched Republican and Democratic machines. The logistics, financial costs, and potential backlash from political insiders appear to have weighed heavily on Musk, pushing him to reconsider the effort. ADVERTISEMENT The decision to put the brakes on the political project marks a significant pivot for Musk, whose public persona and influence have often bridged the worlds of technology, business, and politics. While he has remained an influential figure in global affairs, his more recent focus has been on the ongoing developments within his various companies. At Tesla, for instance, he is overseeing the expansion of electric vehicles into new markets, and at SpaceX, he continues to lead the charge in space exploration with ambitious goals such as Mars colonisation. Musk's interests in politics are not entirely new. Over the years, he has publicly supported various policies, including renewable energy and free speech. His vocal stance on several contentious issues, such as COVID-19 restrictions and electric vehicle adoption, has often put him at odds with certain political factions. Musk has also found himself embroiled in heated debates over social media regulation, especially following his acquisition of X. His leadership of the platform has sparked fierce discussions over free speech, censorship, and the role of social media in shaping political discourse. Yet, despite his prominent role in political conversations, Musk appears to have recognised that the formation of a political party would divert valuable time and resources from his core business operations. The billion-dollar ventures that he oversees require his undivided attention, and the global impact of his companies continues to demand his focus on innovation and market leadership. In addition to his ventures in the tech industry, Musk has also made headlines for his outspoken opinions on global economic matters, including the future of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. These areas of interest have gained significant traction in both Silicon Valley and the broader global economic community, further solidifying Musk's place as one of the most influential figures of his generation. However, the reality of balancing such high-profile business interests with the demands of a political movement seems to have caused Musk to reconsider the practicality of entering the political arena. Critics of Musk's political ambitions have long questioned whether his approach to governance and policy would be effective in a partisan environment. While his supporters argue that his unconventional thinking could bring fresh ideas to the political table, others have expressed concern about the potential for chaos and instability that might accompany the rise of a third-party candidate with little experience in traditional politics.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Let voters, not politicians, decide elections in democracy
Jeffrey A. Mandell, Tribune News Service The effort in Texas to hastily redraw congressional maps for partisan advantage reveals vulnerabilities in our democratic system, subject to exploitation by bad actors. As this crisis escalates into multiple states, it threatens the notion that voters should determine who wins elections. Driving the effort to rig these maps is President Donald Trump's anxiety over potentially losing control of the US House of Representatives in next year's midterm elections. To avoid that outcome, Trump asked Texas Republicans to redraw voter boundaries in order to add five more Republican seats. US Attorney General Pam Bondi's Justice Department wrote to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, falsely asserting that the current maps violate federal law. The letter demanded that Texas further exacerbate its existing partisan gerrymander by adopting an even-more-audaciously partisan mid-decade redistricting plan. Abbott obeyed, calling the Texas legislature into special session to adopt new maps. In response, most members of the Democratic caucus in the Texas House fled the state to deprive the legislature of a quorum and forestall Trump's plan. Abbott declared this action unlawful, asserting the lawmakers can be removed and replaced, and ordering their arrest. (It appears Abbott will now call a second special session, and the Democratic House members will return.) This has triggered another troubling development: Democrats have publicly proposed that 'blue' states respond in kind. They say California, New York, Illinois and possibly other Democrat-led states should immediately redistrict to create more Democratic-leaning congressional districts. And there is talk that Republicans in Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Missouri may re-tinker with their maps as well. As an advocate for redistricting reform in Wisconsin, I believe nothing good can come from Trump's redistricting arms race. This is happening solely due to his unwillingness to abide by democratic norms, which is nothing to emulate (as some are beginning to recognise). Rather, this should be an opportunity to think anew about the process and standards used to draw the representative districts that underlie our democracy. The constitutional guarantee of 'one person, one vote' means each of us should have an equal say in who represents us in government and makes the laws by which we all live. We uphold this principle by redistricting at the beginning of each decade, using new census data to divide our population into electoral districts, for everything from city councils to state legislatures to the US House of Representatives. Drawing district lines has always been entwined with efforts to game the system for advantage. These efforts, called gerrymandering, can take many forms. But all wrest power away from voters by fixing electoral outcomes, transforming campaigns that should be contests of ideas into preordained charades. Voters have little say because the district lines are drawn, using incredibly precise partisan data, in ways that preclude actual competition. Yet the harm from allowing Texas to ram through Trump's plan will be compounded if blue states retaliate with new maps to balance the net partisan impact. This, too, would threaten the foundational concept — the credo of our nation — that we, the people, choose our leaders. There is a better way. Districts can and should be drawn both to avoid significantly advantaging one political party over another and to increase electoral competition. Whenever it is otherwise, elected officials have less incentive to be responsive to voters. Law Forward, the pro-democracy law firm I head, is currently urging the Wisconsin courts to evaluate the state's congressional map, which was purposely drawn to give Republicans an advantage. We believe the state's courts should recognise competition as a relevant criterion in evaluating maps. And courts across the country should follow suit. Court intervention is not the ultimate solution. Every state should adopt independent, nonpartisan redistricting models. The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition is holding hearings around the state, engaging voters in discussion about how maps should be drawn and what factors should be considered. Several other states have adopted nonpartisan redistricting models that are working. We should demand this approach be expanded, not restricted or scrapped. What's happening in Texas is a travesty for democracy. The consequences affect every American. We, as voters, must demand better.
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
US halts visas for Palestinian medical evacuees from Gaza
The US State Department announced on Saturday it was halting all visitor visas for Palestinians from Gaza while it conducts a "full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days". The move follows unverified claims posted on X by far-right commentator Laura Loomer, who alleged that Palestinians granted medical-humanitarian visas were 'pro-Hamas' and tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her posts drew support from some Republicans, including Congressman Randy Fine, who called the visas a 'national security risk'. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) condemned the restrictions, calling them 'the latest example of the Trump administration's complicity with Israel's genocide' and 'intentionally cruel'. 'It is deeply ironic that the Trump administration would ban Palestinian children seeking treatment while rolling out the red carpet for racists and indicted war criminals from the Israeli government,' Cair added in a statement on X. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters According to Reuters, the US has issued more than 3,800 B1 and B2 visitor visas in 2025 to holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents, which allow foreigners to seek medical care in the United States. That total includes 640 visas issued in May alone. Heal Palestine, an NGO that coordinates evacuations for injured children and their families, said it has assisted 148 people so far this year, including 63 children in urgent need of care. On 4 August, the group announced its 'largest single medical evacuation' to date, bringing 11 critically injured children, along with caregivers, to the US for long-term treatment and rehabilitation. Basic right The Palestine Children's Relief Fund, which has facilitated free medical care for sick and injured children for more than 30 years, warned the visa halt would strip children of their 'most basic right to access medical care'. Reacting to the new policy, Loomer wrote on X that she hoped "GAZANS are added to the Trump travel ban", which targets a number of Middle East countries, "and hopefully every single Gazan who came in under [former US President] Biden and Trump is immediately deported'. 'They are not that sick if they can sit on a plane for 22 hours,' she added. Israel's bombardment has devastated Gaza's healthcare system, leaving the besieged enclave without a single fully functioning hospital. The World Health Organisation estimates that as many as 12,500 patients in Gaza require evacuation for medical treatment.
