Warner Bros. Discovery Hits 1-Year High On New Corporate Structure: Retail Applauds Strategic ShiftJulia Wick | (TNS) Los Angeles Times As California politicos look ahead to 2025, the biggest question looming is whether Vice President Kamala Harris — a native daughter, battered just weeks ago by presidential election defeat — will enter the 2026 California governor’s race. Related Articles National Politics | Senate begins final push to expand Social Security benefits for millions of people National Politics | Trump taps immigration hard-liner Kari Lake as head of Voice of America National Politics | Trump invites China’s Xi to his inauguration even as he threatens massive tariffs on Beijing National Politics | Pressure on a veteran and senator shows what’s next for those who oppose Trump National Politics | What Americans think about Hegseth, Gabbard and key Trump Cabinet picks AP-NORC poll Harris has yet to give any public indication on her thoughts and those close to her suggest the governorship is not immediately top of mind. But if Harris does ultimately run — and that’s a massive if — her entrée would seismically reshape the already crowded race for California’s highest office. Recent polling suggests Harris would have a major advantage, with 46% of likely voters saying they were somewhat or very likely to support her for governor in 2026, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey co-sponsored by The Times. “If Vice President Harris were to choose to run, I am certain that that would have a near field-clearing effect on the Democratic side,” Rep. Katie Porter, D-Irvine, said during a recent UC Irvine panel interview . Porter, a high-profile Democrat who has been eyeing the wide-open governor’s race, has yet to say whether she plans to run. Porter’s point was broadly echoed in conversations with nearly a dozen California political operatives and strategists, several of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly. Most speculated that a Harris entry would cause some other candidates in the race to scatter, creating further upheaval in down-ballot races as a roster of ambitious politicians scramble for other opportunities. “In politics, you always let the big dogs eat first,” quipped Democratic political consultant Peter Ragone. The current gubernatorial field is a who’s who of California politicians, but lacks a clear favorite or star with widespread name recognition. The vast majority of California’s 22 million voters have yet to pay attention to the race and have little familiarity with the candidates. The list of Democratic candidates includes Los Angeles’ first Latino mayor in more than a century ( Antonio Villaraigosa ); the first female and first out LGBTQ leader of the state Senate ( Toni Atkins ); the sitting lieutenant governor and first woman to hold that post ( Eleni Kounalakis ); the state superintendent of public instruction ( Tony Thurmond ) and the former state controller ( Betty Yee ). Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is serving his second term as California governor, meaning he is ineligible to run again. Several other Democrats, including Porter, outgoing Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta have also publicly toyed with the idea of a run. They could be less likely to enter the fray should Harris decide to run. What the billionaire mall mogul Rick Caruso — who has also been exploring a run — would choose to do is an open question, as Caruso might contrast himself with Harris as a more centrist candidate. The real estate developer was a registered Republican until November 2019. It’s unlikely that Harris will proffer a public decision in the immediate term, leaving plenty of time for political insiders to game out hypotheticals in the weeks and months to come. Harris’ office did not respond to a request for comment. “I think every candidate for governor is trying to get some kind of intel,” Mike Trujillo, a Los Angeles-based Democratic political consultant and former Villaraigosa staffer, said of a potential Harris run. Trujillo speculated that Harris’ current state was probably similar to Hillary Clinton’s hiking sojourns in the Chappaqua woods after losing to Donald Trump in 2016, or Al Gore growing a beard in the bruising aftermath of his 2000 defeat. “The first thing she’s probably thinking about is, ‘Well, can I run again for president in four years?’ Not, ‘Do I run for governor in two years?’” said one political operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. Harris maintains a home in Brentwood and previously served as California’s senator and attorney general. A successful run for governor in 2026 would almost certainly impede a grab for the presidency in 2028. (Though if history is any guide, an unsuccessful run for California governor does not definitively preclude a bid for the Oval Office: Two years after losing the White House to John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon lost the 1962 contest for governor to Pat Brown . The Yorba Linda native became the nation’s 37th president in 1969.) As the chief executive of a state that doubles as the world’s fifth-largest economy, Harris would have more power to steer policy and make changes as a California governor than she did as vice president, where her job required deference to President Biden. But leading a state, even the nation’s most populous, could feel like small potatoes after being a heartbeat (and a few dozen electoral votes) from the presidency. The protracted slog to November 2026 would also be a stark contrast to her ill-fated 107-day sprint toward the White House, particularly for a candidate whose 2020 presidential primary campaign was dogged by allegations of infighting and mismanagement. “I don’t think Kamala Harris has a deep psychological need to be governor of California, or to be in elective office in order to feel like she can contribute to society,” said the operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. “I think some of these people do, but she’s somebody who has enough prominence that she could do a lot of big, wonderful things without having to worry about balancing California’s budget or negotiating with Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel,” the Encino Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s budget committee. Technically, Harris has until March 2026 to decide whether she enters a race. But political strategists who spoke to The Times theorized that she probably would make a move by late spring, if she chooses to do so. “People will be more annoyed if she drops in in June,” a Democratic strategist involved with one of the gubernatorial campaigns said. Sending a clear signal by February would be more “courteous,” the strategist continued, explaining that such a move would give candidates more time to potentially enter other races. Kounalakis is a longtime friend and ally of Harris’ , and the vice president also has long-term relationships with some of the other candidates and potential candidates. California has eight statewide elected offices and campaign finance laws allow candidates to fundraise interchangeably for them, meaning money already raised for a candidate’s gubernatorial campaign could easily be redirected should they decide to run for, say, lieutenant governor instead. There are already a number of candidates running for lieutenant governor, including former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, former state Sen. Steven Bradford and former state Treasurer Fiona Ma. But that office probably would see even more interest should Harris enter the gubernatorial race. It’s a largely ceremonial position, but one that has served as a launching pad for the governorship. Still, even if Harris does enter the race, Republican political strategist Mike Murphy threw cold water on the idea that she would have an automatic glide path to the governor’s office. “It’s like Hollywood. Nobody knows anything. She’s famous enough to look credible in early polling. That’s all we know for sure,” Murphy said. “Does that predict the future? No. Are there a lot of downsides (to a potential Harris candidacy)? Totally, yes.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
super ace 3
。
Honda shares set for best day in more than 16 years on share buyback plan, Nissan deal“You said you liked my tattoo”: Tiktoker ‘La Mana’ exposes chats with one of the ‘magpies’
‘Christmas Light Fight’ Host Carter Oosterhouse on Holiday Traditions, Marriage to Amy Smart & MoreGarrett Wilson is frustrated and his future will be a major decision for the next Jets GM, coach
Kulusevski rescues Spurs to deny Rangers victory in Europa League
Drop in Boxing Day footfall ‘signals return to declining pre-pandemic levels’
49ers GM John Lynch says Brock Purdy status ‘tenuous’ after MRI on shoulder injuryThere is a startling contradiction at the heart of Bay Area politics. On the one hand, the Bay Area is an unabashed “blue” stronghold, defining itself by its support for diversity and tolerance. Yet its resistance to building new homes cuts against these values. Time and again, experts have proven that suppressing housing is fundamentally regressive, massively increasing segregation, per-capita carbon emissions and rents. But possibly even more troubling, the opposition to development is kneecapping the Democratic Party on a national level. Leaders like Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama understand this, which is why they embraced pro-housing rhetoric during the 2024 campaign. If Democrats want to preserve electoral power, they must show that the approach to governance has merit. They must provide sanctuary to vulnerable Americans. They must build more homes. There’s little overstating how badly California and places like Marin County have failed at the above. Over the last half-century, California’s paltry housing production has left it with an immense supply shortage, and it now possess the nation’s highest cost of living. No place has driven the state’s crisis as much as the Bay Area. As a result, our state’s population dropped in 2019 for the first time since 1850, then proceeded to fall for the next three years straight. Marin has long been the strongest opponent of growth in the state; while California’s population nearly doubled post-1970, Marin’s stalled, growing just over 22%. And while some argue that recent population declines prove we don’t need to build, these folks are confusing cause and effect. Demand is as high as ever, as seen by our skyrocketing rents. So where are people moving instead? In many cases, it is to affordable, politically “red” states. Since 2020, red counties have gained over 3.7 million new residents, and blue counties like Marin have lost over 3.7 million. While low demand helps keep prices down in red states, even high-demand cities in these areas have continued to build homes. For example, in 2022, Austin, Texas, permitted 50% more homes than the entire Bay Area. And who’s filling these homes? Evidence shows that the vast plurality of new Texas residents in Austin come from, naturally, California. For a nation as evenly divided as ours, the implications of this are severe. With the drop in population, California has already lost one congressional vote, and experts project us to lose at least four more this decade. In total, Democrat-run states could lose over 12 guaranteed electoral votes and House seats after the 2030 census. And while it’s true that pushing a Republican state like Texas left could have upsides, as the presidential election proved, its trend is far from certain. But even beyond future electoral math, the inability of blue states to build is undermining party optics right now. Experts agree that our lack of housing is the primary reason homelessness is so widespread in the region. So when American voters see images of Bay Area encampments, they rightly see and take to heart the failure of Democratic leadership. And in an election where inflation topped the voters’ concerns, how could a former California senator credibly offer to reign in prices given our state’s cost of living? Even worse, it’s not just fueling Republican electoral victories – California is supporting that party’s legislative agenda. These actions force countless Americans to live in states that have blocked Medicaid expansion. Some have banned abortion, even in cases of rape and incest; eliminated access to gender-affirming care; or instituted sweeping voter-suppression laws. Obama famously emphasized that “there are no red states or blue states, just the United States.” While true, Republican governments exist. California is helping to expand their grasp. Democrats can’t afford more excuses. This is a numbers game, and every time groups move to ban housing – be it because political leaders abhor “capitalist developers” or new neighbors – it plays into the hands of the GOP. It’s time to change that. It’s time to say yes to more homes. David Newman, of San Francisco, is an intern for the Marin Environmental Housing Collective. Learn more at marinmehc.org.