Latest news with #DeepBlueState
CNN
30-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Kamala Harris will not run for California governor in 2026
Former Vice President Kamala Harris announced Wednesday that she would not run for governor of California in 2026, ending questions about her interest in the role but raising new ones about the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee's plans for the future. 'For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office,' she said in a statement released Wednesday. 'I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.' In the aftermath of her loss to President Donald Trump, Harris and her team indicated that she would take some time to assess her next steps, which included considering a run for governor of California or potentially another run for president in 2028. Harris had loomed over the potential field in California as a heavy favorite, which still features several other prominent Democrats including former Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. The party is favored to hold the office in the deep-blue state. But Harris also faced skepticism from some home-state Democrats, concerned about baggage from her unsuccessful White House campaign and the potential drag across the state's battleground US House districts that could be pivotal in the midterms. Amid the drawn-out deliberations, Harris had reached out to former California governors to ask what she could get done on the job and asked aides for research and memos that outlined other options. Among those options: Starting a 501(c)(4) organization focused on the information ecosystem and how to empower younger voters while rethinking institutions key to democracy, creating a political action committee to raise money for other candidates, and doing a listening tour of Southern states with a 2028 presidential bid in mind. Harris wanted to make the decision about running before an expected fall book tour was announced. That announcement is coming soon. Her thinking, according to a person familiar with her deliberations, was that she would have time for all of these if she didn't run for governor. 'I have extraordinary admiration and respect for those who dedicate their lives to public service — service to their communities and to our nation,' she said in her Wednesday statement. 'At the same time, we must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis. As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking — committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.' Two people who have spoken with Harris stressed that the announcement should not be taken as a definite sign she will run for president again. Harris made the decision announced Wednesday after returning from a trip to the United Kingdom last week for the wedding of the daughter of her friend and longtime donor Laurene Powell Jobs. For weeks, she had been giving people she spoke with the impression that she was edging away from running. She told one person who spoke with her that she felt she could have the biggest impact by leading 'from the outside.' Harris and several close friends worried that she would get caught up in the granularity of running for governor, especially because they figured she'd have to over-exert herself to prove her bona fides that she wasn't taking the race for granted, and that would take her out of bigger discussions she very much still wants to be a part of. 'To run for governor, you have to get more specific and granular to what the legislature is working on – and she's needed in the national conversation,' the first person who spoke to her told CNN. As for running for president again, 'it means she doesn't have to make a decision right now, but she can spend time leading.'
The Independent
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Washington Democrats don't know whether to panic or surrender to left-wing Mamdani's playbook after NYC race shocker
Whatever you do, don't extrapolate this result! Democrats in Washington and the media were falling over each other on Wednesday and Thursday to insist that the party as a whole should not follow the democratic socialist bent of Zohran Mamdani after the 33-year-old pulled off an upset victory in the New York mayoral primary. Defying the polls, Mamdani beat former governor Andrew Cuomo in the first round of voting — even as Cuomo's camp went into the day boasting of being ahead. Mamdani, they argue, does not provide a policy mold for other Democrats to fit themselves into, given New York's status as a deep-blue stronghold where a Republican is largely assumed to have no shot of winning in November. They're correct about the electorate itself not being representative of the country as a whole. But the panic among a certain generation of Democrats, especially in the days leading up to Mamdani's victory, is indicative of a party elite with some glaring vulnerabilities that were once again laid bare on Tuesday. Eleven months after former President Joe Biden stepped down from his re-election bid and forced his party into an accelerated catch-up sprint with around 100 days to go, the party's centrist establishment once again pinned all of their hopes (and cash) on an unpopular, aging statesman beset by ethical concerns. Guess what happened next? Not even a massive onslaught of Michael Bloomberg's wealth could save Cuomo, who remained well behind Mamdani throughout the night as votes were counted. None of the multitude of Democrats who once called on Cuomo to resign over sexual misconduct allegations could give a clear explanation for their change of heart — or why they weren't backing one of Mamdani's numerous other rivals. Axios's Alex Thompson, speaking on After Party with Emily Jashinsky, described the mindset of party leadership, whom he said told voters: 'This is the best candidate. Eat your vegetables.' For the second time in as many years, it didn't work. With a new reality setting in, the party's caucuses in Washington are split over how to view Mamdani, who now is very likely to become one of the most prominent Democratic politicians in the country. Progressives, of course, are openly embracing him. A few members of the party's establishment have come around as well, like Rep. Jerry Nadler, who endorsed him on Thursday. Others have not. Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, both from New York and the two highest-ranking Democrats on the hill, have not made official endorsements of Mamdani's campaign for the general election (yet). Both are facing calls from prominent progressives to be challenged in their own primaries next year. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat in a front line district in the state, openly tweeted his reservations about the state assemblyman after his victory. The coverage of the race clearly plays a role here. Even as Mamdani himself was laser-focused on the issue of affordability in New York City, his association with the Democratic Socialists of America and his opposition to Israel's war in Gaza received an intense focus from a controversy-hungry mainstream political press. Even Mamdani's joint interview with cross-endorser Brad Lander on Stephen Colbert's Late Show was dominated by talk about Israel and Palestine. Front-line Democrats still fear any association with their party's far-left, whom they mainly view as a punching bag in tough election years. And party leaders in Washington still feel they have to cater to those representatives and senators, whose fates are so closely tied to the party's ability to fundraise in future cycles. A larger coalition, however, is taking some non-controversial lessons from Mamdani's victory — or, at least, lessons that would be non-controversial anywhere besides the Democratic Party. Voters, they argue, were certain to back the younger candidate less tied to the party's establishment in a year when more and more voters (especially millennials, who were a leading part of Mamdani's voter coalition) have lost faith in the party's establishment to lead themselves, let alone anyone else. They were also less likely to pick a candidate with such obvious baggage as Cuomo under the argument that a former governor who resigned in disgrace under a cloud of allegations was somehow the stronger pick come November. Especially when the city's voters were already weary of the evolving scandal around Mayor Eric Adams, who dropped out of the Democratic primary while under a corruption probe. Progressives and moderates cease their agreement after this point. The party's centrists will argue that the successful characteristics of Mamdani's appeal can be replicated in a candidate outside of the party's left wing. Progressives disagree, claiming that the kind of personal connection to voters only exists among more populist candidates, especially younger ones. They also point to Mamdani's massive army of volunteers, which they argue is directly tied to lefty organizations like DSA. And they argue that Cuomo, like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris before him, couldn't articulate a vision for their governance at all If nothing else, Tuesday's election results in New York sent one clear message to party leaders. Their efforts to shut out the progressive wing by throwing big-name endorsements and the crushing weight of big donor money behind weak candidates who have seen too many election cycles will increasingly be met with failure, unless the party can actually convince voters that the center-left has an exciting bench of charismatic younger leaders to pick up the torch.
