Here's why Kamala Harris could run for governor of California and bypass another White House bid
LOS ANGELES — Many of Kamala Harris' supporters and detractors alike think she'd have better odds running for California governor rather than president a third time.
There are several reasons for Harris to make a bid to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. She would immediately become the early front-runner instead of entering a presidential primary with a dozen or more serious contenders. No other candidate in California could match her résumé of having served as San Francisco district attorney, state attorney general, U.S. senator and vice president.
Beyond being expected to make a decision by the end of summer, Harris said little about her future. She told a crowd in Orange County in April: 'I'll see you out there. I'm not going anywhere.'
Newsom has predicted that Harris would top the field in a contested primary but added, 'if she runs.'
To run for governor, 'you have to have a burning 'Why?' ' Newsom said on the 'Next Up with Mark Halperin' podcast.
'And if you can't enunciate that, the answer is 'No,'' Newsom added. 'Why the hell would you want this job?'
Here are some reasons why she might want it — and why she might not. Her office did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Harris would have to convince national Democrats that she's the face of the party's future, despite losing to President Donald Trump last fall. She's also tied to former President Joe Biden, whom Democrats are increasingly criticizing as new books drive further discussion about his age and physical and mental readiness during his time in office.
The 2028 presidential contest is expected to attract a large field, likely to include Newsom. Any candidate will have to unify a fractious Democratic Party with low approval ratings and struggling to slow Trump's agenda in Washington.
Democratic consultant Bill Burton, who was national press secretary for former President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, said Harris would enter a presidential primary with a proven fundraising network, strong recognition with voters and the experience of operating in a Trump-fueled media environment.
But the looming question for Democrats is likely to be, 'Who is the best person to stand up to the MAGA movement and exhibit a strength that is going to need to be really formidable?' Burton said.
Could Harris make that case? Some think her time has passed.
'She's had her chance,' Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.
'Voters want authentic outsiders who will shake up our broken political system and challenge an economic status quo rigged for billionaires against working people,' Green added. 'That's why Kamala Harris lost, and it's why Democrats must turn elsewhere for leadership.'
Harris calls herself a proud daughter of California, and after serving as vice president and in the Senate, she doesn't need to chase another title. That said, California is one of the world's largest economies by itself, and its governor becomes, by default, a national figure.
She would most likely run as a proven hand with the experience to lead California's tussles with Trump — the state is known as the epicenter of the so-called Trump resistance — while dealing with its many problems, among them homelessness and a punishing cost of living.
In her San Francisco speech last month, she said the nation was witnessing a 'wholesale abandonment' of American ideals under Trump.
The contest to replace Newsom in California is crowded, with leading candidates including former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Biden administration health secretary Xavier Becerra.
It's expected that at least some of her rival Democrats would bow out rather than compete against her, including Porter, who in 2012 was appointed by then-attorney general Harris to be the state's independent bank monitor in a multibillion-dollar nationwide mortgage settlement.
Democratic consultant Roger Salazar, who was a delegate in the party's 2024 presidential convention, said Harris would stand better odds in a race for governor in her home state.
With multiple election wins in California, 'there is just more certainty,' Salazar said. 'I think she's got a leg up right now, but this race hasn't solidified' with the primary more than a year away.
How will voters view her? As a favorite daughter of California returning home? Or a two-time presidential also-ran looking for a soft landing?
Republican consultant Kevin Madden, who was a senior adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012, was dubious about her chances in either race. It's unusual for a candidate to capture the presidency after two losses — Biden was one example.
As for governor, 'the California electorate is about as ideal as it gets for Harris, but nothing about her current electoral record indicates that primary or general election candidates should be scared off,' Madden added.
Unlike many other states, California doesn't automatically advance a Democrat and a Republican to the November election.
The state's open primary system has tormented many candidates — critics call it the 'jungle primary.' All candidates appear on a single ballot, regardless of party, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
The system can lead to strategic gambles. Last year's U.S. Senate race included three prominent Democrats — U.S. Reps. Adam Schiff, Porter and Barbara Lee. Schiff ran TV ads in the primary that spotlighted Republican Steve Garvey, presumably a weaker contender in the general election than either of his Democratic rivals. Garvey ended up advancing to November, where he was soundly defeated by Schiff, who now holds the seat.
But Harris could come out of the June 2, 2026, primary facing a Democrat who ends up criticizing her in much the same way she'd have faced in a 2028 bid.
San Francisco-based Democratic consultant Eric Jaye recalled another Californian who, after losing a presidential race, sought to rebound in his home state: Richard Nixon. After being narrowly defeated in the 1960 election by then-Sen. John F. Kennedy, Nixon lost the 1962 race for California governor. (Of course, Nixon ended up winning the White House six years later.)
While Harris is a favorite with Democrats, a slice of the electorate has deeply negative views of her, Jaye noted. That doesn't leave her with many voters to gain, and the Democratic primary vote could be divided among multiple candidates.
'I don't think it's in any way guaranteed that she would win,' Jaye said. 'She's a highly polarizing figure.'
Harris would be coming home to a long list of problems.
The homeless crisis is playing out daily on the streets of Los Angeles and other big cities. Newsom this month said the state is facing a $12 billion deficit and he wants to freeze enrollment in a state-funded health care program for immigrants living in California without legal status. There is a home insurance crisis and a continuing threat from destructive wildfires.
And as the last election made clear, Republicans will attempt to saddle her — fairly or not — with her home state's reputation for confiscatory taxes, gas prices and utility bills, seven-figure home prices and liberal social policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senator Martin Heinrich calls for Torrance County ICE detention facility to be closed
Jun. 9—New Mexico's senior senator is calling for a New Mexico-based Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility to be closed, after his congressional staff observed troubling conditions during a visit in late May. "For years, detainees have been denied adequate access to legal services and medical care while being subjected to inhumane living conditions and continued instances of physical abuse," Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., wrote to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in a letter Thursday. The Torrance County Detention Facility is owned and operated by CoreCivic in Estancia. Heinrich has repeatedly pushed for CoreCivic's contract to be terminated, including in a December 2023 letter during the Biden administration. "CoreCivic is committed to providing safe, humane and appropriate care for the people in our facilities," CoreCivic spokesman Brian Todd said in a statement, pointing to the facility's overall "good" ratings in its 2024 and 2025 ICE Office of Detention Oversight audits. As the Trump administration has been trying to increase deportations, members of Congress have been attempting to conduct oversight of ICE detention centers around the country. When New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver and other Democratic officials tried to do an oversight visit to a Newark ICE center in May, she was charged with two counts of assault after a confrontation with officers trying to arrest the Newark mayor. On May 28, Heinrich's staff members were allowed to tour one housing unit at the Torrance County facility, but were denied access to two other housing units, after they heard at least 10 detainees file complaints of abuse, and lack of access to laundry and medical services. According to Todd, detainees have daily access to sign up for medical and mental health services, there are clinics staffed with licensed health professionals and medical personnel on site at all hours. "The agent claimed that a revised ICE visitation protocol prohibited congressional staff from visiting housing units with detainees present," the letter reads. "However, the document the agent cited made no mention of limiting congressional staff visitation to empty pods, and it in fact cited to a statutory authority explicitly forbidding ICE from denying congressional staff conducting oversight access." Congressional staff members found backed-up sinks, a drain in the middle of a common area backed up with sewage water, and non-functioning tablet devices — devices that people detained by ICE use to access legal services, according to Heinrich's letter. The conditions match those described by detainees and advocates, the letter says. Maintenance staff respond quickly to plumbing issues, Todd said in a statement, and the common area drain was backed up with water after debris collected in shower drains, not with sewage. CoreCivic is committed to providing detainees with access to counsel and courts, Todd said, although he did not respond to a question about the broken tablets. TCDF Warden George Dedos confirmed that the detention facility had no water from Estancia for three days, the letter says, and was unable to answer questions about the capacity of the facilities' two back-up water tanks or describe the contingency plan for when there is another water outage, "short of the total relocation of all the detainees." "He told my staff during their visit that the water shortage had not impacted their operations, but that runs contrary to what detainees said during that same visit," Heinrich wrote. His staff were told by detainees that "water was only turned on for one hour every three days for showers, they were provided only two bottles of drinking water per day, and they were unable to flush toilets for days at a time." CoreCivic was notified on April 29 that Estancia was having a water supply issue and tried to reduce its water consumption. Drinking water and bottled water were available, Todd said, and water was provided to help flush toilets "as an added measure to reduce water consumption." The laundry services and showers were placed on a schedule, but "those services were still available to all of those in our care," according to Todd. ICE did not respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
