Why Kamala Harris isn't running for governor
Another faction of Democratic politicians and donors was less enthusiastic, though few voiced their misgivings directly to Harris. Some members of her party spoke of a prolonged hangover from her presidential loss. Even if they did not blame her for losing to Trump in a truncated campaign, they did not want to be reminded of what transpired.
Among Harris' most ardent backers, the mood was decidedly mixed. Some remembered how she had initially eyed the governorship a decade ago, only to run for U.S. Senate instead. Others questioned if she truly was interested in spending time in Sacramento, hundreds of miles from her Los Angeles home, slogging through grueling budget negotiations and contending with state legislators.
Many conveyed they'd be with her either way — but they wanted to be sure it was the best decision Harris could make for herself.
Kamlager-Dove, meeting again with Harris in June as the speculation around the governor's race was hitting its peak, urged the former vice president to make a decision 'that was going to sit right with her heart.'
'As a woman, I know what it's like to feel like someone might be pressuring you to do something that you don't necessarily want to do,' Kamlager-Dove said. 'So I remember being very vocal about making sure that she was leaning into her own agency. She put her hand on her heart and thanked me for saying that and for sharing that, and I could tell that she was taking all of this very seriously.'
Last week, Harris traveled to England to attend the wedding of Eve Jobs, daughter of Steve Jobs and Laurene Powell Jobs, a close friend of Harris'. The Cotswolds event, which included a number of attendees from her long-ago San Francisco days, was a clarifying change of routine that, according to several people close to her, helped solidify her decision. She began to inform her inner circle of her decision when she returned on Sunday.
Among those who got an advance heads-up were Newsom and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a gubernatorial candidate who had planned to leave the race if Harris ran. People who spoke to her prior to the public announcement said she was upbeat and quick to laugh, showing some relief in making her decision.
Her allies say she still sees a national role for herself and is not closing the door on a 2028 presidential run, although that was not a predominant factor in her decision.
'There's a lot of work that has to be done here in California specifically, but there's a lot of work that has to be done in the country,' said Todd Hawkins, a Los Angeles-based bundler who has supported Harris for years. 'And I think she sees her voice as a national voice as well, not limiting that to California.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate passes first funding package ahead of shutdown cliff
'It's taken a great deal of work, good faith and negotiation to get to this point,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'Congress has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility under Article I, for the power of the purse. We are executing that responsibility.' The package would provide almost $154 billion for military construction and veterans programs. It would send more than $27 billion to the Agriculture department and FDA. Both represent a roughly 2 percent boost over current levels. The Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, an appropriator and the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, that would bar the rescission, or clawback, of funds in the bill by the White House. Democrats are worried that the administration will send another rescissions package ahead of the fall funding deadline, which would likely implode any hopes of getting a larger funding deal. Still, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, defended the smaller deal reached among senators, saying that the package 'rejects damaging cuts from Trump and House Republicans.' The Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment from Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Alex Padilla of California that would bar the use of any funds in the bill to reduce services provided by the Veterans Crisis Line. Senators rejected other amendments from Democrats including one that would have halted funding of the Agriculture Department reorganization and another to require a report on staffing reductions at the VA. They also rejected amendments from Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that would have made deeper cuts to the Agriculture-FDA bill. The chamber also voted 75-21 to reject a proposal from Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin that would bar lawmakers from taking credit for earmarks. It would require the funding to be revoked if a lawmaker were to ever tout their earmarks in interviews, mailings, speeches or even on the campaign trail.
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Great Political Money Gap
There are many signs that the Democratic and Republican Parties are in different places. Here's one: The main Republican presidential super PAC controls almost $200 million. The main Democratic presidential super PAC is still repaying millions of dollars it accepted from someone who is now a convicted felon. Such is the state of big-dollar political fund-raising, as last night's filings with the Federal Election Commission made clear. When it comes to attracting mega-donors, Republicans are crushing Democrats. That could mean a lot more ads for conservatives than for liberals in next year's midterm elections. MAGA Inc., President Trump's super PAC, collected about $177 million in the first half of 2025, in large part from cryptocurrency interests eager to curry favor with Trump. The corresponding group for Democrats, Future Forward, had a slightly different tie to crypto: It spent the last six months disbursing $3.4 million to what is known as the FTX Recovery Trust, repaying money it had accepted during the 2022 election cycle from crypto-exchange executives like Sam Bankman-Fried. (Last year, Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison after being convicted of stealing billions of dollars from his customers.) Future Forward's cash on hand as of June 30? $2,826.08. At the same time, the Republican National Committee sits on over five times as much money as the Democratic National Committee does. The disparity doesn't end there. Republicans are also doing better down ballot. The main House G.O.P. group, the Congressional Leadership Fund, has a $10.5 million cash advantage over the corresponding Democratic group. The main Senate G.O.P. group, the Senate Leadership Fund, has a $16 million advantage over that of Senate Democrats — and that doesn't include the Democratic group's staggering $21 million in debt it retains from last fall. (These figures do not include fund-raising from allied nonprofits.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
