The following article by Ruy Teixeira, politics editor of The Liberal Patriot newsletter, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of major works of political analysis, is cross-posted from The Liberal Patriot:
Gavin Newsom has had quite a year. While other Democratic politicians have struggled to adapt their pitches to the chaos of the second Trump term, Newsom has responded with a blizzard of activity that has dramatically raised his national profile. He has also benefited from copious, if not fawning, media coverage including a splashy recent profile in Vogue magazine. At first mired in single digits with a scrum of other potential candidates, all trailing Kamala Harris by wide margins, he is now close to her or narrowly ahead in three commonly-cited poll averages (RCP, 270toWin, Race to the WH) of primary voter support for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.
His rising strength is reflected in the betting markets. On Predictit, he is far and away the betting favorite for the Democratic nomination, way ahead of AOC (second) and Harris (third). And in the market on the 2028 general election, he is way ahead of other Democrats and very close to the leading Republican candidate, JD Vance.
What accounts for this remarkable pro-Newson surge? How did this liberal California Democrat win over so many in the wake of Democrats’ comprehensive defeat running…a liberal California Democrat?
The answer lies in Newsom’s ability to be everything to, well not everybody, but to every Democrat. Think of Gavin Newsom not as an ordinary politician but as a message delivery system—and a very effective one. Of course, all politicians to varying degrees are about that. But Newsom stands out as letting absolutely nothing stand in the way—principles, beliefs, prior positions—of delivering the message he deems most politically effective at any given time to any given audience.
That has enabled him to appeal to diverse Democratic audiences. Think of Resistance liberals, whose white-hot anger at Trump is sure to galvanize a large share of Democratic primary voters. Right after Trump was elected, he declared a special session of the California legislature. His office said:
The special session responds to the public statements and proposals put forward by President-elect Trump and his advisors, and actions taken during his first term in office—an agenda that could erode essential freedoms and individual rights, including women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights…A special session allows for expedited action that will best protect California and its values from attacks.
A steady stream of denunciations of Trump administration actions from Newsom and the governor’s office has followed, especially during last June’s protests against ICE actions in Los Angeles which resulted in the deployment of the National Guard to quell riots. Newsom did not hold back his rhetoric or legal actions against this development. He said:
Democracy is under assault right before our eyes—the moment we’ve feared has arrived.
He’s taking a wrecking ball to our Founding Fathers’ historic project.
And so on. Indeed, Newsom has not missed a chance to aggressively oppose everything the Trump administration has done, whether it directly involved California or not. He has traveled to Brazil to oppose Trump climate policies at COP30 and, most recently, showed up at the World Economic Forum in Davos to denounce the administration. And, in reply to Republican attempts to gerrymander congressional seats in Texas and elsewhere, he has happily torn up nonpartisan districting in California to heavily gerrymander the state for the Democrats.
In essence, he has appointed himself “Chairman of the anti-Trump Resistance” and has the receipts to back it up. In Resistance liberal land, they love this just as Newsom intends.
But for those who are concerned that the party must moderate some, not just resist Trump, Newsom also has something to offer. He started a podcast, This is Gavin Newsom, where his guests have include the late Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro, and other conservative luminaries. This has provided him with the opportunity to venture some cautious signals that he is more moderate than the average Democrat. In his podcast with Kirk he agreed that trans-identified biological boys in girls’ sports seemed “unfair” to him. And in his very recent podcast with Shapiro, he allowed as how calling ICE activities “state-sponsored terrorism” was not justified and that it was probably not a good idea to call for abolishing ICE. Related, in a conversation with Ezra Klein, he admitted that “we [the Democrats] failed on the border, we have to own that.” He has also, in his actions as California governor, responded to moderates’ concerns about homeless encampments by supporting moves to dismantle them and to concerns about crime with tougher rhetoric and additional tools to prosecute felonies and drug dealers.
Some of Teixeira’s comments seem to go against his conclusion: Newsom’s opposition to billionaire’s tax; comments that “trans-identified biological boys in girls’ sports seemed “unfair” to him;” even Klein’s “abundance” agenda, which, after all, is an effort to move away from the stereotypical view of how liberal’s view government. I think Bill would smile. I’d be interested in knowing who Teixeira thinks is today’s Bill Clinton, and in what ways that would be a good thing given the problems we face.
Two things.
1. Ross Perot voters’ small margin of preferring for Bill Clinton’s opponents as their second choice and the collapse in turnout among self-identified conservatives over “read my lips” in 1992 made enough of a combined difference to decide the 1992 presidential election. The second wasn’t the case in 1996 so Clinton has some credibility, but would-be Medicare eliminator Newt Gingrich has the same credibility. So even before polarization became a center repellent, moderation wasn’t magic.
2. Polarization isn’t a center repellent now, you insist? Non-progressive Democrats still dominated state and local politics in the South that was key to Clinton’s victories. And Dems have historically been the party less prone by far to ideological primary challenges. Don’t blame the left either because the same thing happened to non-conservative Republicans.