The Rise of Gavin Newsom

The California governor is marshaling support for Joe Biden but has his own challenges to navigate—and potential future aspirations.

By
90
Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation raising California fast food workers minimum wage to $20 an hour on Thursday, September 28, 2023. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images)

SIMI VALLEY, California—Nobody looks to be having more fun at the second Republican presidential debate than a certain prominent Democrat, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

California’s affable, telegenic chief executive holds court with reporters, spars with conservative activists, and mixes it up with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. Newsom does it all with a seemingly permanent smile on his face, with the easygoing disposition of a politician enjoying the fruits of the pressure-free spotlight that accompanies promoting someone else’s White House bid. The governor was dispatched here, to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, by President Joe Biden, to do just that.

“I revere the president of the United States. I’m here having his back,” Newsom tells a throng of journalists Wednesday in the spin room at this Reagan shrine, site of the latest Republican debate, televised by Fox Business Network. The governor hasn’t been doing anything more than run-of-the-mill surrogate duty for Biden. But the president’s age—he turns 81 next month—leads to inevitable questions about which White House contest Newsom might have in mind: Biden’s in 2024 or his own in 2028?

Newsom, 55, is a smooth operator, difficult to pin into factually and politically uncomfortable corners. He’s always armed with a raft of data bolstering his position—or preferred narrative—on myriad topics, regularly challenging adversaries to “Google” the subject matter at hand and fact check his assertions. And when he wants to, such as last Wednesday, this demonstrably liberal governor knows how to speak swing-voter and drive a wedge into the heart of a fragmented Republican Party.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
90
By
Comments (90)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Wright0321

    I was naively hoping he would appoint a Californian to the Senate. Then again we’ve gone without representation so long, how much worse can it get?

    It’s awful that we have to rely on him to veto his party’s worst ideas. And the other team is mostly a bunch of no-hope nut cases…

    Collapse
  2. Durango19

    Cotton/Crenshaw24

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    After his utterly contemptible and indefensible decision to choose a president of Emily’s List simply because she’s black and gay to backfill a US Senator, there is zero amount of praise I can hear about him that will persuade me that he is anything other than a reactionary leftist. She is an awful choice to thrust into the spotlight and expect us to take seriously but I learned long ago to expect nothing less from such an empty suit.

    It’s unfortunate that my party is infested with fools, babies, teapot dictators and juvenile reactionaries of their own. A serious party could wipe the floor with all of these grifters and charlatans but no such organization appears to exist in America. Yuval’s first word on The Dispatch podcast said it best:

    Alas.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Karmol

      you don't become the president of Emily's List "simply by being black and gay". it's definitely one of the most respected and effective Dem-aligned organizations, and the Dem base *really* respects experience in hands-on community organizing or non-profit experience. I lived in SF a couple years ago (now in Brooklyn) and I can say with a lot of certainty that many SF residents would feel well represented by her.

      She's a leader on women's issues and prochoice, which has resonated well politically in the last two election cycles, AND she's been the president of the largest union in California (very important with all the strikes happening now).

      She's qualified, she represents her many Californians views, and additionally we get the added bonus of that she is a gay woman of color. TBH - I didn't know she was gay or black when i saw the original announcement, i just read that her bio said "president of Emily's List, former president of a union" and I thought to myself "Newsom made a very savvy choice"


      Her bio by the way:

      Butler was a key leader of Vice President Harris’s presidential campaign. For more than a decade, she served as the president of the largest labor union in California — SEIU Local 2015 — a union representing more than 325,000 nursing home and home-care workers throughout the state.

      Previously, Butler served as President of SEIU United Long Term Care Workers (ULTCW) and also as SEIU’s Property Services Division Director, in which she was responsible for the strategic direction of organizing on behalf of more than 250,000 janitors, security officers, window cleaners, and food service workers across the country. Butler also served as an SEIU International Vice President and president of the SEIU California State Council.

      Butler was the former director of the Board of Governors of the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve System. In 2018, she was appointed to the University of California Board of Regents by Governor Jerry Brown, where she served until 2021. She served in various other roles, including as a board member for the National Children’s Defense Fund, BLACK PAC, and the Bay Area Economic Council Institute, and as a fellow for the MIT Community Innovators Lab.

      Butler was named a “Champion for Change” by President Barack Obama.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        I find Emily’s List to be detestable and I’m pro choice. But I didn’t say she that was chosen to be president of that organization because she’s black and gay. She was chosen to replace Feinstein for that reason, which Newsome openly stated. A black woman, he said. Presumably gay is a bonus.

        Anyway, you can list all her fancy credentials and that’s fine but it’s the openly stated explanation that irks me. It’s a permission structure for for similar decisions to be made in other walks of life in the same way. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being a gay black woman. Identifying that condition as some sort of qualification is the problem and it will generate a backlash sooner or later both from white people who rightly see it as discriminatory but also from black women who will now be questioned about their qualifications to do the job in question.

        It creates resentment in the electorate for the purpose of elevating the estimation of a single politician who needs such esteem to remain in power. That is detestable.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Ah, so you would have rather he appointed Barbara Lee? The Congressional Black Caucus was pressuring him to do so.

      The appointment is just for a year. It is unlikely that she'll end up being elected at the end of year, considering she is a complete unknown to the California electorate. In the meantime, Newsom will have fulfilled his promise to appoint a black woman, made a lot of the far left happy with his choice, and got the Congressional Black Congress off his back. It is more than likely that one of the candidates who already have their hats in the ring will be selected by the California voters in 2024.

      And, yes, I realize that you might think Emily's List is the Work of the Devil, but most Californians are pro-choice and don't have a problem with an organization that promotes pro-choice female politicians. He is choosing California's interim Senator, not yours.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        I would rather he picked her because he thinks she’s the best person for the job. I can dispute that but I can respect it. He made the announcement that he would choose a black woman before he even stated whom it would be. That is unfair to her as well as his constituents. I am pro choice and I loathe Emily’s List but of course you’re right about Californians and Newsome’s constituency.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Jonathan

      Leftist reactionary is a poor description of Newsom. Stalin was a Leftist reactionary. Ambitious opportunist is closer to it with Newsom. Leftists are way more ideological.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        That’s not an unfair point in that in context but I’m not comparing him to Stalin but to other politicians of the time.

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Party-san

      Meh. It just shows he understands how to play to his base. That means he’ll fit right in in Washington where apparently governing has completely given way to grandstanding.

      Politically it’s a very astute appointment: he keeps his promise to appoint a black woman, but he doesn’t disrupt the senate race in his state by picking one of the candidates. The others (who are more likely to win) will owe him favors. The appointee won’t run in the race herself. And it’s all very short term.

      And fundamentally who cares who gets appointed to the senate? It’s not like congress does anything remotely constructive and votes are passed on party lines. At least she can run an organization which is a whole lot more than some of the goons in the house.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jen

    So the woman Newsom appointed to DiFi’s seat is president of Emily’s List. Imagine the outrage if a Republican governor appointed to the senate the head of some major pro-life advocacy group. MSNBC would be going nuts.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Will Bates

      Do Supreme Court judges count?

      Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      So what? FOX goes nuts every damn day.

      Collapse
  5. Jeffdodgers

    Newsome is an oily sleazebag whose governing philosophy is to pander to the extreme fringe of the radical left. I’d pity the citizens of California but they chose him.

    Collapse
  6. Mattfrommo

    If Newsome were ever a Presidential candidate, the RNC would run ads talking about the French Laundry until the cows came home. I don't think he is going to play in Peoria, so to speak. The problem is, with the map the way it is at the moment (and it could always change), the Midwest is what he needs to win the White House. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio: in which of those states will Newsome match or outperform Biden?

    Collapse
    1. Grafakos

      Newsom can actually debate, so it's not hard to imagine him outperforming Biden in just about any state.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Karmol

      with Gretchen Whitmer as VP? I've thought a lot about that as a potential ticket. Or someone from Pennsylvania, though no one really comes to mind as a suitable candidate.

      Collapse
  7. Vernon Brickey

    “I have great respect and admiration for people I disagree with. I don’t want to demonize people,

    BREAKING: California’s high-capacity magazine ban was just STRUCK DOWN by Judge Benitez, an extremist, right-wing zealot with no regard to (sic) human life. Tweet by Gov. Newsom.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Andrew, Revachol CM

    Good on Drucker for highlighting Newsom's dyslexia. It seems like a minor point, but it really makes Newsom different than any other politician I've seen. I highly encourage the interested to watch one of Newsom's press conferences - the way he talks is a lot more casual while also loaded with stats and details that he actually knows. Because he effectively can't read, he memorizes all his messaging. But since no one is perfect, he also ad-libs frequently seeming more flexible and natural than most other political suits. Newsom is a weird combination of charismatic and uncharismatic traits. Of course, no one watches more than 10 second clips of politicians on cable news, so maybe it doesn't matter.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Cogitatio

      People with dyslexia can read. There are some struggles with it at times, but they are still functional in society without being a savant.

      Which Newsom does not seem to be.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Andrew, Revachol CM

        I apologize if it came across as if I was implying people with dyslexia cannot read. Of course they can, but it's more difficult and because of the greater attention it requires Newsom can't rely on a fast moving teleprompter, or a glance at written notes while he speaks publicly. He manages his condition well and is a testament to the ability of people with disabilities to atain significant achievements.

        https://dyslexia.yale.edu/gavin-newsom-knows-like-struggle-reading/

        Of course it would be nice if his politics were better and had less personal dirt that he's swept under the rug.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Andrew, Revachol CM

    No one is talking about SB326 in California.

    I admit I only know about it because of my job, but it's so far avoided almost any media coverage. The short of it is that Newsom is taking a cleaver to the current Mental Health Care system and reorganizing it to prioritize short-term (read: before 2028) housing for homeless people, while reducing the level of funding for crisis, prevention, early intervention programs. I'm personally agnostic on the impending massive reform (since I support more housing but am worried about the many local programs that could lose funding). To me it feels like a huge gambit that may (or may not) help Newsom's short-term political ambitions but could have very long-term consequences.

    I, the poor policy wonk, will continue to yell into the clouds.

    https://www.chhs.ca.gov/behavioral-health-reform/#redesigning-the-mental-health-service-act-sb-326

    Collapse
  10. Mirabelle

    This is an advantage that D's have over R's:

    R's preferred narratives rarely have facts to back them up. (I said rarely, not never.)

    D's, being the party of higher education, make sure they throw out facts and figures in their narratives because D voters expect that.

    While many voters would like to see a challenge to Biden, their former paralyzation over who to choose as an alternative has left it late in the day for a primary challenge. And Newsom has obviously been given the nod for '28, which is interesting in itself.

    Newsom *does not* have to clean up CA to be a quite viable presidential candidate. Those kinds of things do effect ten or eleven voters, but what is more important is who Newsom would be running against.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

      1. Mirabelle

        Since '16, R's having been making up more outlandish stuff than usual. And a lot of R voters believe it. So in ratio right now the R's can't change themselves, but other voters can. This is what I mean when I say D's shape the R party, not R's. The majority of R's are not looking to change their party, though I am interested to see how the initial primary results go. So the shaping of their party comes from outside of them. In that sense, it doesn't matter how many R's believe the lies, but how many other voters don't.

        Collapse
        1. Deleted Comment

          This comment has been deleted

          1. Mirabelle

            Yes, that's what I'm saying. Since the traditional R's can't bring change to the MAGAs, Democratic voters will bring change through defeating MAGA candidates, which they've shown a penchant to do. But it's a curious state of affairs when the other party determines what your party will look like.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Cogitatio

      I have to say that D's preferred narratives are often not based in reality, and rarely have facts that support them. California is a great example of how this actually works. They do not have sufficient power, their gas prices are sky-high, they pursue policies that actually harm workers, climate policies that will not change the climate situation, etc. Many policies are emotional, not fact based, and that is simply the truth of the matter. Things are no better on the Republican side, it is merely a difference in focus.

      And of course, partisans on both side see their tribe as the "right" side, and the other side as wrong, bad, evil, etc.

      Perhaps Newsom does not need to "clean up" California to be viable as a candidate. But it will sure give his opponents in both a primary and the general election a metric ton of ammo to fire off at him.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Abridge683

        Ah yes - the joy of electrical power in California. We have an interesting problem: during the summer, when it's hot through the Central Valley and down in SoCal there is also a huge electrical load from irrigation. All those A/C units and factories are all going at once. And, generally, substantial heat waves affect much of the West at the same time. So the entire electrical grid in the West is under strain. A substantial investment in renewables has eased this problem. A moderate summer in 2023 has given us a break. Next summer we'll have even more solar and wind generation. Probably we won't have the same moderate conditions that held this year. But we can hope.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Cogitatio

          It is interesting that other states do not have the same degree of problem, and that they sell their power to California...

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Abridge683

            It is a complex issue and most certainly California has made some errors. Seismic issues make nuclear power difficult. You'd like to be near the ocean with that vast heat sink - but that's all high seismic danger area - and there are really no large river systems to offer the same capability. So it's cooling towers which expend quite a bit of water that isn't reclaimed - just vanishes into the air. There are topping plants, natural gas fired, that can come online to handle peak loads. They, of course, have issues too: huge CO2 emitters. Coal? I think not.

            And then there are the power lines in the Sierra that need to be buried to deal with the dangers of forest fires.

            We can always work at being more efficient in use of energy.

            Collapse
      2. Mirabelle

        What does "do not have sufficient power" mean when discussing basing policies on facts? No large entity has sufficient power if by that you mean self-sufficient in power. CA has made strides in renewable power.

        You are sort of proving my point about some narratives being fact-free.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Cogitatio

          Respectfully, I believe you are making mine. Policies based on fact would not follow the direction California has taken. If California were to actually achieve 100% electric car sales by 2035, for instance, the grid could not take it.

          Collapse
          1. Mirabelle

            You did not present your argument well. You shorthanded a bunch of stuff assuming your knowledge was my knowledge. You have finally laid out a specific: EV transition.

            It at one time appeared as though EV transition would go more smoothly than the reality has determined, and CA joined other world leaders in this belief. Never having been tried before, it was open to the most optimistic interpretation, especially with governments helping it along. Those initial interpretations have turned out to be wrong, yet backing up the train is not possible since so much investment has gone into the transition. So EV transition is not a pipe dream, only its present targets are. That's a bit different than trying to base a gender transition policy on infrequent bathroom attacks.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          Many people outside of California remember the rolling blackouts during the Enron debacle twenty years ago and assume they are still ongoing. And the fire-prevention outages of the past few years have further confused them. I keep pointing out that California has had only one rolling blackout in 20 years because of demand on the grid, and that blackout affected only a small percentage of Californians and only for short one-hour periods.

          There's no question that California's power grid is more vulnerable than it should be. But California is hardly alone in that. For what it is worth, there are a number of other states that experience more outages on a per capita basis than California. It's just that conservatives love to assume that California is the worst in everything.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Cogitatio

            I was actually in California during the rolling blackouts of that era, but I never referenced the "rolling blackouts." Let us look at a source that is hardly "conservative":

            https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-blackouts-power-grid/story?id=89460998

            "California buys electricity from other states to boost its supply, but during a widespread heat wave, there's less energy for other states to sell."

            "The solar supply decreases toward the end of the day, prompting the calls to reduce energy use after 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. There can also be uncertainty with solar supply due to factors such as cloud cover and smoke from wildfires, as the state battles several blazes."

            "The state also uses natural gas to power its grid. Though during this heat wave, several plants, including gas-fired ones, partially broke down"

            The article is actually written from the perspective of someone who supports renewable energy, but even so, it cannot avoid the facts: renewable energy is wonderful as a supplement, but it has severe limitations. Until those are overcome, it cannot be the main source of power at night, dusk, etc.

            And of course, this article is from...last year.

            The truth is that California does not have enough power. It buys power from other states because it has mismanaged its power capacity. And it is making things worse for the future, assuming it achieves its goal of only allowing electric cars in the state. Which seems a challenge, since electric cars are stacking up at dealerships across the country because Americans do not want them.

            I am pro renewable energy, BTW. Have solar panels on my home in Texas, that I paid for. There is a lot of renewable energy in Texas, and we certainly have our own electric grid challenges, as does most of the nation.
            Fortunately, all those "infrastructure bills" spending trillions of dollars have solved all those problems, right?
            :-)

            As I am constantly saying, the Democratic party and the American Left are not better than the other side. They are both just...bad.

            Collapse
          2. Mirabelle

            CA actually has an energy advantage because of its climate. Solar works better for them. And CA is full of smart, innovative people doing exceptional things. This brings out jealousy in those not similarly gifted.

            Collapse
Load More