“We gotta get ahead of the 2028 election or our grandparents are gonna think Newsom is the best thing since sliced bread”
I liked Gavin Newsom before I really knew anything about Gavin Newsom.
I like that he stands up to Trump. I like that he joined California to the WHO after Trump exited the whole country from it, and I like that he cares about the environment and the lower class in CA.
The more I listening to him speak, though, the more I started to think something was…off. Maybe disingenuous?
In today’s post, I’m going to depart from my usual and look at a Democrat that could be a candidate for President in 2028….that I don’t support. I will discuss the reasons why, and then introduce who would get my vote for 2028.
Let’s start with a short bio.
From Little Gavin to “The Newsom”
Bet you can guess where my bio information is coming from!
Brittanica, as always.
Gavin Newsom was born in 1967 in San Francisco, CA. Newsom was one of two kids born to Tessa and William Alfred Newsom III. Having just learned that his father was the third of his name, I can already tell I’m not gonna like him.
(That was a joke ;))
Willy was an appellate court justice. Gavin’s parents divorced and both kids lived with their mother, who worked multiple jobs to support her family. Gavin was diagnosed with severe dyslexia at age 5 and subsequently struggled in school, but was incredibly gifted at sports. He attended Santa Clara University on a partial baseball scholarship and graduated with a B.S. in Political Science.
In 1992 Newsom opened PlumpJack winery with a friend, Gordon P. Getty, son of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty. He found success here, and also began getting into politics. He was city Supervisor of San Fran and also volunteered for Willie Brown’s successful campaign for mayor in 1995.
In that position Newsom was known for supporting measures that took a tough stance on homelessness, a major problem in the city. He notably sponsored Care Not Cash, a program that reduced monthly payments to homeless individuals and instead provided housing. Although controversial, it was approved by voters in 2002. The initiative was later shown to be successful. There was a significant decrease in payments as homeless residents were placed in shelters or permanent housing. The city used the savings to increase funding for mental health and substance abuse services as well as to create more living spaces. The homeless crisis continued, however, largely because of the continual arrival of homeless people to the city.
Newsom became the mayor of San Fran in 2004. One of his first actions in office was authorizing city officials to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of state law. While he faced criticism, his decision was ultimately vindicated as same-sex marriages later became legal across the country in 2015. He pursued other traditionally liberal policies, perhaps most notably Healthy San Francisco (2006), a program that provides universal health care to residents of the city. However, on economic issues Newsom largely adopted a more moderate approach. He offered tax incentives to lure businesses to San Francisco and supported development projects, though he did side with striking hotel workers in 2004–06.
He was the Lieutenant Governor of CA in 2011, where he served until he came the Governor in 2018. He has faced some controversies since then, which we will discuss next.
Controversies
All of his actions up to this point in his bio are things I’d easily support. Taking care of homeless people? Awesome! Letting gay folks get married? Heck yes! You go, Gavin. So why wouldn’t I support him as President?
First, let’s look at the COVID misstep he made.
After calling on Californians to mask up and stay home to avoid spreading COVID..
Newsom attended an outdoor dinner at one of the fanciest Michelin star restaurants in the area, celebrating a long-time friend’s birthday.
Obviously, directly going against his own advice is problematic. This gives the appearance of “rules are good for thee, but not for me”. To be fair to Newsom, he did later state, “While the First Partner and I followed the restaurant’s health protocols and took safety precautions, I should have modeled better behavior and not joined the dinner“.
He did the right thing and apologized, and I appreciate accountability in a candidate. From what I can find, he did follow all protocols. It’s just overall a bad look.
The next “controversy” was when he was speaking to Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens and commented that “I’m like you; I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy. And, you know, and I’m not trying to offend anyone, trying to act all there if you got 940.”.
This was immediately picked up in the news as a racist comment, as Andre Dickens is a black man. Republicans, including Trump called him out for calling black people “dumb”. Dickens, though, didn’t see it as that. Quote from Inside Higher Ed, “Take it from someone who was actually in the chair asking the questions: Context matters more than a headline,” Dickens noted in an Instagram post. “The conversation around his new book included him speaking about his own academic struggles, including not doing well on the SAT. That wasn’t an attack on anyone. It was a moment of vulnerability about his own journey.”
I definitely don’t think Newsom was trying to be racist, and do appreciate candidates who can be real about their struggles (for Newsom, dyslexia). I do think his comments could have been phrased better and come off like “I’m a rich white guy trying to pretend to be the common man”.
Here’s where I really have a problem with Newsom. In February 2026, Newsom stated, “I think there’s a broader narrative that we ought to address […] We have to be more culturally normal. We have to be a little less judgmental”.
He didn’t elaborate from there, but he has a history of speaking out against woke culture. In his podcast, he’s discussed trans women competing in women’s sports as being deeply unfair, despite the fact that trans athletes are often fairly beaten by their cis competitors. Overall, he seems to be distancing himself from the trans and LGBTQ community in general, perhaps to appeal to a wider audience in preparation for a run for President.
I see this as a key issue, because Trans people and other members of the alphabetic acronym are seeing their rights stripped away by Trump. At the very least, we need a candidate who will stand up for their rights and defend their right to exist. Tony Hoang, an LGBTQ+ rights activist in CA summed it up perfectly. “Instead of standing strong, the Governor has added to the heartbreak and fear caused by the relentless barrage of hate from the Trump Administration”.
Some other reasons I wouldn’t choose Newsom:
- He vetoed bills that would have enacted audit recommendations for removing fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs. Deliberately not wanting the protect the tax money in his state seems suss.
- He voted against a billionaire tax in California (????) because it might lead billionaires in Silicon Valley to leave the state. They’re not paying taxes as it is, so who cares? 😀
To really understand how people feel about him as a candidate, I’ll look to Reddit. Here are some opinions on a post about “What is with the Newsom hate?“
These opinions, combined with his controversies make me think he isn’t the strongest candidate for a 2028 election.
My 2028 Choice
If I had to pick today without any additional research, I’d vote…
MARK KELLY!
The main reason is his experience: Military, NASA AND politics. In addition, he went against Trump and reminded troops that they didn’t need to follow illegal orders, which resulted in Trump calling for his rank and retirement to be stripped.
He didn’t back down, and he wasn’t wrong: troops can’t follow illegal orders. Nuremburg showed how well that defense worked.
I’ll do a follow-up post on him and make sure he deserves my endorsement, but walking him speak I get far more of an authentic vibe.
Thanks for reading!
Excuse me while I sort of giggle into my elbow. It isn’t exactly reasoning from a false premise, but it is similar. WHY does your preferred candidate have to be a Democrat? Weren’t the two previous D Presidential candidates enough disaster for you, either in actual policy or total incoherence? Has the wonderful DFL “trifecta” just passed not a wake-up call beyond overlooking? Come sit with me and those I know, and puzzle with us how, in any sane world, a Democrat could EVER be elected to anything?
Well at this point because the Republican party is devolving publicly into an Islamophobic, racist and Nationalist gang of thugs hell-bent on destroying the country for anyone who isn’t white, straight and Christian 🙂
To be less candid: As I’ve previously stated, I think Biden and Harris were both poor choices both in timing and in policies. Clinton was also a poor choice. The democrat party needs to run someone with ideals that reach across party lines. Newsom might do that, but I think he’s highly influenced by whatever is in vogue at the moment, bending his morals and ideals to whoever he is talking with at the time. I want someone with a strong backbone and conviction who will stick to their campaign promises, and I don’t think Newsom is it.
I think Rubio or Vance would both continue to, as I see, destroy the melting pot that has made the US great.
How were the Obama and Biden presidencies a “disaster” when they left the country on a better footing than what they were handed by their Republican predecessors? Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression: a shrinking economy, a collapsing financial system, and a 10% unemployment rate. Strict financial regulations, auto industry bailouts, and stimulus spending at his direction led to 79 months of private-sector job growth by the time he left office.
Biden’s policies took an economy in shambles from the pandemic and steadily managed it to the point where Trump was once again handed an economy on a strong, sound footing.
There were 1.74 million jobs added in the fourteen months leading up to January 2025, when Trump assumed office again. By contrast, in his first year in office, the Trump presidency saw just 181,000 jobs created.
Economies under Republican vs. Democratic presidents. It’s a rather stark comparison, no?
Thank you for sharing that data, Kevin! I think it’s a good starting point for a future post.
I don’t view Mark Kelly’s video where he “reminded troops that they didn’t need to follow illegal orders” as at all heroic. Yes, he is accurate, but sending that message without clarification of how to handle a situation where a soldier may they feel their orders are illegal is beyond negligent. It’s the same as telling your teenager they don’t have to listen to a police officer if they are told to do something that is illegal. How are they supposed to know what is legal and illegal? Does every order require a legal assessment? Being wrong can be catastrophic. Hesitating can be catastrophic.
It’s a similar shortcut that Frey and Walz took when encouraging peaceful protest of ICE, but not clarifying what that looks like and more importantly what it doesn’t look like. For messages like this, leaders have a responsibility to be abundantly clear. Anything less is irresponsible.
We already have a guy who likes to lead through soundbites. I think we can do better.
Thanks for commenting Derik!
The UCMJ is taught to everyone who goes through basic training, and follow-up continuing education reminds troops of their legally bound duties to uphold it. Article 92 of the UCMJ covers disobeying orders, and the full text defines what a lawful order is. Having been through basic training and enlisted for 8 years, I can assure you that not one person in the armed forces is unaware of lawful vs. unlawful orders for any reason other than willful ignorance.
To reframe your analogy, it would be like telling a group of police officers not to do anything illegal, knowing they received tons of training on what is and is not legal for them to do. I can’t say the same for ICE officers though, because they clearly don’t know what laws govern them 🙂
If “not one person in the armed forces is unaware of lawful vs. unlawful orders” why does Kelly have to make a statement?
The same reason we need to have the same Cybersecurity CBT, highly uncomfortable sexual assault prevention talks and UCMJ briefs. As a reminder.
If he was truly concerned that there was need for refresher training, he knows how to bring that to the attention of leadership in the Pentagon so that full and complete “reminder” training could be scheduled. The only justification for his video would be that he tried every avenue available to him but was unsuccessful. In his comments after the release of the video he didn’t once mention trying to follow the chain of command. It was grandstanding.
My thought is the answer lies in the context. IIRC, at the time the video was released Trump was threatening the Insurrection Act against Minneapolis because of the ICE protesters. As the National Guard or Active force would be deployed against civilians, it was a good time to remind troops of their duty to uphold the constitution. Considering some of the tactics ICE was told to use: Reference Here, and the recent message to U.S. Commanders on the Iran War, one Commander stating higher ups …urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ“, I’d say the warning was not without any justification.