Newsom may be the best candidate for the Democrats in 2028, but not because he is in any way truly moderate. He is a standard issue California progressive, hardcore left-wing and woke on every issue of consequence. If he is elected, he will govern to the Left of what Biden did.
Newsom's greatest assets are his good looks and not having an automatically snarling personality toward anyone who disagrees with him. He has been willing to engage in cordial debates with political opponents who are well-known: Charlie Kirk, Ron DeSantis, et al. He has a moderate public personality but he is not in the least moderate on public policy issues.
If Gavin Newsom could snap his fingers and accomplish for the US, overnight, what the Boy Wonder Governor has accomplished for CA, the day after the his election, Americans would awaken to a nation where another 40 million people would require Medicaid, because like 40% of Californians, 40% of Americans would be too poor, to otherwise afford healthcare.
Overnight, 34 million more Americans would cease being homeowners and become renters, because the CA homeownership rate is 10% below the national average.
CA is home to roughly 25%+ of all the US homeless, with 190K people residing outdoors permanently, like livestock, but CA only comprises 12% of the US population. If Newsom inflicted his CA homeless rate on the entire nation, the number of US homeless would soar from 780K people to more than 1.5 million, producing more than 3/4ths of a a million, new American homeless.
At a nearly 18% official poverty rate, if the US endured CA's poverty rate, the US poverty rate would soar by nearly 50%. Tens of millions of newly impoverished Americans would appear overnight.
Am far from a mathematician, and those with far greater skill will produce far more exact numbers, but the above is but the tiny tip of the economic iceberg that awaits America, should we be so unwise as to elect Gavin Newsom. A Newsom Presidency would make Biden's term look like a disappointing vacation, by comparison.
Joel Kotkin is a Trump loathing, liberal Democrat CA college professor, who for decades has been the Godfather of CA statistics. Once one of the state's biggest cheerleaders, both politically and economically, Kotkin has documented CA's decline, especially under Newsom, in astonishing numerical detail.
Kotkin's writings appear in many publications like Newsweek, Unherd and Spiked, but he makes all of them available for free at his website (https://joelkotkin.com/). There are generally 2 new writings a week. Every voter needs to read them, to understand the magnitude of the economic tsunami that would befall the US, with Newsom in the WH. Given the chance, Gavin will do for the entire US, what he has done for CA. That should terrify every American.
In his state of the state address in 2024, Newsom said, "Here's the truth Republicans never tell you: California is not a high-tax state. You pay a higher percentage in taxes if you're poor in Texas than you do if you're wealthy in California."
State and local tax burden by state, World Population Review: California 13.5%, Texas 8.6%.
State and local tax burden by state, U.S. Census Bureau: California 2nd in nation, Texas 34th.
State and local tax burden by state, Wallet Hub: California 4th highest, 11%. Texas 40th, 7.8%.
The guy lies his hair-gelled head off and thinks no one will notice.
For low- and middle-income earners, studies have suggested that the overall tax burden can often be lower in California due to its progressive system and lower property taxes.
For high-income earners and investors, Texas generally offers a significant tax advantage because of the absence of state income tax and capital gains tax.
According to salestaxhandbook.com, the average sales tax in California, including both state and local, is 8.81%. The average sales tax In Texas is 7.698%, same source. This is a flat tax, you pay it on most product and services you buy. California charges 71 cents per gallon in state fuel tax, which is the highest in the nation. Texas charges 20 cents per gallon, the 40th highest. Source: taxfoundation.org The rate of property tax in Texas is approximately double that of California, yet the median house price in California is $907K vs. $354K (forbes.com), so the property taxes are actually lower in Texas due to lower valuations.
Having lived in both places, the above might be technically correct for a longtime homeowner, but not most others. Property taxes are much higher in Texas, because of a lack of income tax, but property valuations are lower. CA saves long time homeowners money because their property tax never rises to fair market value of the home. CA property tax caps are actually more welfare for the wealthy, than a benefit to lower earners. Prop 13 is much less valuable to new home buyers, who pay taxes on the actual value of the home and renters, which middle and low earners tend to be in CA.
Also California's dirty little secret is despite the high cost of living, it has some of the lowest Blue Collar and low skilled wages in the US. Generally speaking, a larger portion of the population performs those types of jobs, so there is more competition for that type of work.
The median household income in California is $100,600 (St. Louis Fed). On that, a couple filing jointly would pay state income tax of $2,508; zero in Texas, which has no state income tax. The median property tax in California is $2,839 (tax-rate.org) vs. $2,275 in Texas (same source). Sales taxes, which are regressive, are slightly higher in California at an average of 8.98% vs. 8.2% in Texas (Tax Foundation). Gasoline tax in California is 68 cents per gallon vs. 20 cents in Texas. In EVERY category, whether progressive tax like income tax or regressive tax like sales tax, the average citizen pays more in California than in Texas.
The problem is, while there may still be moderate Democratic voters in America, there aren't any "moderate" Democrats to vote for. They are all in a reality TV show trying to outperform each other...their lack of conviction and authenticity is obvious
Of the twelve candidates on You Gov's list, just two don't represent single-party Democratic states and those two are at the bottom of the list. The two at the top of the list, Newsom and Harris, are both liberal Californians. The problem is that the liberal policies which can get you elected in California and potentially nominated for President by the Democratic Party can also get you defeated in the national election.
I hope so, but if the economy is still stagnant in 3 years, the Democrats are going to have 4% more votes than they did in 2024. That would turn 48% to 52%.
But Newsome is a staggeringly weak candidate. He's overseen the ruination of our most economically vibrant state. Now California is the closest thing America has to a sci-fi dystopia with white liberals literally living in the clouds while drugs, crime and homelessness overwhelm the brown-skinned masses.
During every election cycle, contenders take turns having a moment as the frontrunner. I remember this as far back as a kid in 1980, when Newsweek ran a cover story called Bush Breaks Out of the Pack.
Right now may be Newsom’s turn and nothing else.
I certainly hope so: the man supports free Medi-Cal for illegal immigrants, and is 100% behind woke gender and race ideology. The state has poured money into homelessness programs that seem almost designed with a goal of paying salaries to people who keep other people homeless. Something about freedom of choice, I think.
He knows he’s wrong, and even tried to admit that males don’t belong in women’s sports. He backed down the moment the pushback started. So he’s a coward, too.
The state is broke. Our schools are horrible. Just one example: UCSD rejects 75% of applicants, yet has to run a math class that teaches elementary-level math. And 18% of its incoming students haven’t even mastered Algebra 1. Many even failed questions set at a first- or second-grade level!*
In 2016, Clinton was the only candidate less electable than Donald Trump. Then they forced Harris on us, and she was even less electable than Clinton. Newsom could fare even worse than Harris.
Newsom is peaking too early. He could wear out by 2028 primary season. Watch the 1988 anti-Dukakis ads. Change California for Massachusetts. An outsider with minimal political baggage and a hugely bank account could make the move as an alternative to the party establishment.
Much as I dislike the idea, the analysis is spot-on. The modern Democratic Party is juggling a tent full of crazy that's simultaneously angry, terrified, and in denial. Newsom allows them to revel in their Resistance, pretending it's compelling to anybody else, kicking the can down the road instead of addressing any of the obvious problems with the direction and depth of their coalition.
Even if by a "miracle" they can thread the needle of depressed turnout and a stagnant economy in 2028, they'll still wake up at the beginning of the next decade with a much less favorable electoral map (as a direct result of their poor governance) and no way of possibly pulling the trick off again. At some point they're going to have to just take their medicine.
It's a long long time until the pre primaries of Jan 28. At that time there might well be an entirely different political landscape. It's hard to predict.
Newsome would be a great candidate from a Democratic perspective, he's very good on camera, comes across as a totally reasonable fellow for a California air head. Personally I'd rather Vance.
Assuming you are right (it’s early but you make a good case) — is Newsom a transformative candidate who can quell the clamoring demands and herd the cats? Or is he just another compromise candidate — just enough progressive, just enough liberal, a little bit of country and a little bit of rock and roll?
If the former, he may do well. If the latter, that often falls flat I think.
We could very well be in the minority, but this statement does not represent us;
"the only thing that matters is that he’s willing to “fight” Trump and Vance. Or as he quipped to Politico about the Democratic Party’s factional divide, “I want it to be the Manchin to Mamdani party.”
We are 50-year Democratic voters who switched to Trump in the last election, hoping that our little bitty "sending of a message" to progressives gets through.
Harris was a progressive. She said different things during the election, but never disavowed ANY progressive stance, and has a video during her election where she still is maintaining "defund the police.'
We won't vote for anyone who is a progressive. And we won't fight for anyone who will "fight" Trump. Fighting is losing. And we won't vote for anyone who includes in the "big tent" an antisemitic anti-police socialist.
Maybe we're alone, and our views can be ignored. You have to decide.
Newsom may be the best candidate for the Democrats in 2028, but not because he is in any way truly moderate. He is a standard issue California progressive, hardcore left-wing and woke on every issue of consequence. If he is elected, he will govern to the Left of what Biden did.
Newsom's greatest assets are his good looks and not having an automatically snarling personality toward anyone who disagrees with him. He has been willing to engage in cordial debates with political opponents who are well-known: Charlie Kirk, Ron DeSantis, et al. He has a moderate public personality but he is not in the least moderate on public policy issues.
If Gavin Newsom could snap his fingers and accomplish for the US, overnight, what the Boy Wonder Governor has accomplished for CA, the day after the his election, Americans would awaken to a nation where another 40 million people would require Medicaid, because like 40% of Californians, 40% of Americans would be too poor, to otherwise afford healthcare.
Overnight, 34 million more Americans would cease being homeowners and become renters, because the CA homeownership rate is 10% below the national average.
CA is home to roughly 25%+ of all the US homeless, with 190K people residing outdoors permanently, like livestock, but CA only comprises 12% of the US population. If Newsom inflicted his CA homeless rate on the entire nation, the number of US homeless would soar from 780K people to more than 1.5 million, producing more than 3/4ths of a a million, new American homeless.
At a nearly 18% official poverty rate, if the US endured CA's poverty rate, the US poverty rate would soar by nearly 50%. Tens of millions of newly impoverished Americans would appear overnight.
Am far from a mathematician, and those with far greater skill will produce far more exact numbers, but the above is but the tiny tip of the economic iceberg that awaits America, should we be so unwise as to elect Gavin Newsom. A Newsom Presidency would make Biden's term look like a disappointing vacation, by comparison.
Joel Kotkin is a Trump loathing, liberal Democrat CA college professor, who for decades has been the Godfather of CA statistics. Once one of the state's biggest cheerleaders, both politically and economically, Kotkin has documented CA's decline, especially under Newsom, in astonishing numerical detail.
Kotkin's writings appear in many publications like Newsweek, Unherd and Spiked, but he makes all of them available for free at his website (https://joelkotkin.com/). There are generally 2 new writings a week. Every voter needs to read them, to understand the magnitude of the economic tsunami that would befall the US, with Newsom in the WH. Given the chance, Gavin will do for the entire US, what he has done for CA. That should terrify every American.
In his state of the state address in 2024, Newsom said, "Here's the truth Republicans never tell you: California is not a high-tax state. You pay a higher percentage in taxes if you're poor in Texas than you do if you're wealthy in California."
State and local tax burden by state, World Population Review: California 13.5%, Texas 8.6%.
State and local tax burden by state, U.S. Census Bureau: California 2nd in nation, Texas 34th.
State and local tax burden by state, Wallet Hub: California 4th highest, 11%. Texas 40th, 7.8%.
The guy lies his hair-gelled head off and thinks no one will notice.
Google AI
For low- and middle-income earners, studies have suggested that the overall tax burden can often be lower in California due to its progressive system and lower property taxes.
For high-income earners and investors, Texas generally offers a significant tax advantage because of the absence of state income tax and capital gains tax.
According to salestaxhandbook.com, the average sales tax in California, including both state and local, is 8.81%. The average sales tax In Texas is 7.698%, same source. This is a flat tax, you pay it on most product and services you buy. California charges 71 cents per gallon in state fuel tax, which is the highest in the nation. Texas charges 20 cents per gallon, the 40th highest. Source: taxfoundation.org The rate of property tax in Texas is approximately double that of California, yet the median house price in California is $907K vs. $354K (forbes.com), so the property taxes are actually lower in Texas due to lower valuations.
Having lived in both places, the above might be technically correct for a longtime homeowner, but not most others. Property taxes are much higher in Texas, because of a lack of income tax, but property valuations are lower. CA saves long time homeowners money because their property tax never rises to fair market value of the home. CA property tax caps are actually more welfare for the wealthy, than a benefit to lower earners. Prop 13 is much less valuable to new home buyers, who pay taxes on the actual value of the home and renters, which middle and low earners tend to be in CA.
Also California's dirty little secret is despite the high cost of living, it has some of the lowest Blue Collar and low skilled wages in the US. Generally speaking, a larger portion of the population performs those types of jobs, so there is more competition for that type of work.
The median household income in California is $100,600 (St. Louis Fed). On that, a couple filing jointly would pay state income tax of $2,508; zero in Texas, which has no state income tax. The median property tax in California is $2,839 (tax-rate.org) vs. $2,275 in Texas (same source). Sales taxes, which are regressive, are slightly higher in California at an average of 8.98% vs. 8.2% in Texas (Tax Foundation). Gasoline tax in California is 68 cents per gallon vs. 20 cents in Texas. In EVERY category, whether progressive tax like income tax or regressive tax like sales tax, the average citizen pays more in California than in Texas.
The problem is, while there may still be moderate Democratic voters in America, there aren't any "moderate" Democrats to vote for. They are all in a reality TV show trying to outperform each other...their lack of conviction and authenticity is obvious
For corroboration of this, look at a You Tube of the Democratic Presidential candidates debate in 2020.
Of the twelve candidates on You Gov's list, just two don't represent single-party Democratic states and those two are at the bottom of the list. The two at the top of the list, Newsom and Harris, are both liberal Californians. The problem is that the liberal policies which can get you elected in California and potentially nominated for President by the Democratic Party can also get you defeated in the national election.
J D Vance is the next president of the U S
! Outside chance is Rubio ! Cruz : nope!
!
I hope so, but if the economy is still stagnant in 3 years, the Democrats are going to have 4% more votes than they did in 2024. That would turn 48% to 52%.
But Newsome is a staggeringly weak candidate. He's overseen the ruination of our most economically vibrant state. Now California is the closest thing America has to a sci-fi dystopia with white liberals literally living in the clouds while drugs, crime and homelessness overwhelm the brown-skinned masses.
ummm ... I'm part of the California masses and I'm not brown-skinned. Be careful of your stereo types.
During every election cycle, contenders take turns having a moment as the frontrunner. I remember this as far back as a kid in 1980, when Newsweek ran a cover story called Bush Breaks Out of the Pack.
Right now may be Newsom’s turn and nothing else.
I certainly hope so: the man supports free Medi-Cal for illegal immigrants, and is 100% behind woke gender and race ideology. The state has poured money into homelessness programs that seem almost designed with a goal of paying salaries to people who keep other people homeless. Something about freedom of choice, I think.
He knows he’s wrong, and even tried to admit that males don’t belong in women’s sports. He backed down the moment the pushback started. So he’s a coward, too.
The state is broke. Our schools are horrible. Just one example: UCSD rejects 75% of applicants, yet has to run a math class that teaches elementary-level math. And 18% of its incoming students haven’t even mastered Algebra 1. Many even failed questions set at a first- or second-grade level!*
In 2016, Clinton was the only candidate less electable than Donald Trump. Then they forced Harris on us, and she was even less electable than Clinton. Newsom could fare even worse than Harris.
*https://x.com/chrisbrunet/status/1988291737010532575
https://www.newsweek.com/students-ucsd-without-8th-grade-math-skills-skyrockets-11030373
The biggest fear is, Newsome has no idea of the disaster he has wrought on CA.
He knows, he just doesn't care
None of the above was most likely excluded because he/she would have made at least a respectable showing.
Newsom is peaking too early. He could wear out by 2028 primary season. Watch the 1988 anti-Dukakis ads. Change California for Massachusetts. An outsider with minimal political baggage and a hugely bank account could make the move as an alternative to the party establishment.
Much as I dislike the idea, the analysis is spot-on. The modern Democratic Party is juggling a tent full of crazy that's simultaneously angry, terrified, and in denial. Newsom allows them to revel in their Resistance, pretending it's compelling to anybody else, kicking the can down the road instead of addressing any of the obvious problems with the direction and depth of their coalition.
Even if by a "miracle" they can thread the needle of depressed turnout and a stagnant economy in 2028, they'll still wake up at the beginning of the next decade with a much less favorable electoral map (as a direct result of their poor governance) and no way of possibly pulling the trick off again. At some point they're going to have to just take their medicine.
It's a long long time until the pre primaries of Jan 28. At that time there might well be an entirely different political landscape. It's hard to predict.
Newsome would be a great candidate from a Democratic perspective, he's very good on camera, comes across as a totally reasonable fellow for a California air head. Personally I'd rather Vance.
Assuming you are right (it’s early but you make a good case) — is Newsom a transformative candidate who can quell the clamoring demands and herd the cats? Or is he just another compromise candidate — just enough progressive, just enough liberal, a little bit of country and a little bit of rock and roll?
If the former, he may do well. If the latter, that often falls flat I think.
We could very well be in the minority, but this statement does not represent us;
"the only thing that matters is that he’s willing to “fight” Trump and Vance. Or as he quipped to Politico about the Democratic Party’s factional divide, “I want it to be the Manchin to Mamdani party.”
We are 50-year Democratic voters who switched to Trump in the last election, hoping that our little bitty "sending of a message" to progressives gets through.
Harris was a progressive. She said different things during the election, but never disavowed ANY progressive stance, and has a video during her election where she still is maintaining "defund the police.'
We won't vote for anyone who is a progressive. And we won't fight for anyone who will "fight" Trump. Fighting is losing. And we won't vote for anyone who includes in the "big tent" an antisemitic anti-police socialist.
Maybe we're alone, and our views can be ignored. You have to decide.
(Good article, John)
I agree with your logic as a matter of avoiding outright fracture of the Democratic Party.
But what a loathsome , vacuous medicrity to actually lead America.
And what he cannot escape is that Democratic governance wherever it occurs is dysfunctional.
Mamdani will soon be another example.
Oh, great --- slick willie as president