The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you'd hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.
In the spotlight is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state's congressional map to boost Democrats and counter the Texas Republican takeover.
Newsom is running for the White House and has been for most of the year, although he won't say it out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a flash in the pan?
Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree about Newsom's presidential prospects and more. Here the two discuss some of their differences.
Barabac: So, is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment, and intentionally take the oath of office as our nation's 48th president?
Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time as possible in the Sierra, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That's about a million light years away in political terms. But I think he has a chance and is the favorite for the nomination right now. He has emerged as President Trump's quick rival and, increasingly, the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump skipped, making Newsom the American presence.
And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom leads by three points. Unexpectedly, though, respondents chose Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.
To me, that shows that he is popular throughout the country. But you have warned that Californians have a hard time attracting voters in other states. Do you think his roots in Golden State will put an end to his contender status?
Barabac: I don't make predictions. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and Trump’s election, the words “can’t,” “no,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently removed from my political vocabulary.
That said, I wouldn't bet more than a penny (which may eventually be worth something, as they are phased out of our currency) on Newsom's chances.
Look, I don't give in to anyone in my love for California. (And I have the Golden State tattoos to prove it.) But I am aware of how the rest of the country views the state and the politicians who have a reference in California. You can be sure that whoever runs against Newsom (and I mean his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans) will have a lot to say about the state's much higher housing, grocery and gas prices than elsewhere, and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.
Not a great prospect for Newsom, especially when affordability is in political fashion these days.
And although I understand the governor's call: fight! Struggle! Struggle! — I compare it to the fleeting fantasy that, for a time, caused the lawyer, convicted fraudster and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti to be seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential candidate. At a certain point – and it's still years away – people will evaluate candidates with their heads, not their guts.
As for polls, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those polls matter at this early stage in a presidential race. Well, you can't ask Muskie, because the former senator from Maine is dead. But all three were the first candidates to fail to win the Democratic nomination.
Chabria: I'm not arguing the historic case against Golden State, but I will argue that they are different days. People don't vote with their heads. Fight me for it.
They vote for charisma, tribalism and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as explained by social media. They vote for memes.
There is no reality in which our next president will be rationally evaluated based on his record; our current president has a criminal one and that didn't make a difference.
But I do believe, as we have talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in danger. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet does not show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping feels of his top advisers. And Vance, if given the chance to run, has made it clear that he is a Christian nationalist who would like to deport almost every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.
Being a Californian may not be the inconvenience it has historically been, especially if Trump's authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of the resistance.
But our governor has an immediate scandal to deal with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?
Barabac: I shouldn't.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom's part. Your opponents will try the issue of guilt by association. Some have already done it. But unless something damning emerges, there is no reason for the governor to be punished for alleged wrongdoing by Williamson or other defendants in the case.
But let's go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I think people do heavily evaluate a candidate's ideas and background. Not in a granular way, or in the way some chin-stroking political scientist might do it. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.
Of course, there are many who would reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck, if he were the Republican nominee. The same goes for Democrats who would vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either of them were the party's nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he has that advantage over the governor.)
But I'm talking about those voters who are at stake – those who decide competitive elections – who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them the most.
Of course, the dynamic is a little different in a primary race. But even then, we've seen the whole dating/married phenomenon over and over again. Like in 2004, when many Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I believe electability (i.e., the perception of which Democrat can win the general election) is right up there with affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 choice.
Chabria: Affordability will undoubtedly be a big issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we will surely hear criticism of California, much of which is fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much and homelessness remains intractable.
But these are also problems across America, and they require deeper solutions than even this economically powerful state can handle on its own. More than the history, what will matter is the vision of the future. What is the plan?
They can't be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that delivers not only more basics like housing, but also the kind of long-term economic stability (higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs) that makes the middle class stronger and more attainable.
The Democrat who can lay out that vision while continuing to fight the authoritarianism currently devouring our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of their origin story. After all, it was that message of hopeful change that President Obama gave us, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.
Mark, are there any 2028 outlooks you're keeping a close eye on?
Barabac: I'm taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include a race for open gubernatorial seats here in California. The November 2026 results will go a long way toward shaping the dynamics in November 2028. That said, there is no shortage of Democrats keeping an eye on the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the top 29 Democrats who ran in 2020? We'll see.
I agree with you that to have any chance of winning in 2028, whoever the Democrats appoint will have to offer some serious, substantive ideas about how to materially improve people's lives. Endangered democracy and terrifying authoritarianism aside, it is still The economy, stupid.
Which brings us full circle, back to our gallant governor. He may be gaining followers and building his national fundraising base with his snarky memes and forceful putdowns of Trump. But even if he can overcome the inherent anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he won't sneak his way into the White House.
I'd bet more than a penny on that.
