For someone whose signature promise following her shellacking in the 2024 presidential race has been to “stay in the fight,” Kamala Harris sure has a funny way of showing it. While mostly disappearing from public view following her one-sided defeat at the hands of Donald Trump eight months ago, the former vice president vaguely hinted at a run for governor of California in 2026. But now, she has sidestepped that particular fight, announcing on Wednesday that she will pass on the opportunity to serve as chief executive of the nation’s largest state. Does this mean she has her eyes on another shot at the White House? Republicans, for one, certainly hope so, while Democrats are likely cringing at the prospect.
Exactly why Harris bowed out is the source of widespread speculation, but Democratic leaders in California have, by most accounts, been reluctant to support the woman who helped drive voter approval of her party into the ditch after becoming the first Democrat in 20 years to lose the national popular vote. She would have faced a crowded field of primary challengers, with five candidates – including Xavier Becerra, who, like Harris, is a former attorney general of the state, and Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles – having already entered the race.
Nothing much has changed in Harris’ presentation since November, most notably her empty rhetoric. Consider her pre-recorded remarks on a video at a leftist youth summit on July 25: “Your generation has grown up on the front lines of so many crises … It is critically important that we have organizations such as this who understand that we must be intentional about lifting up our young leaders and encouraging your ambition. Keep building your political power, keep building community, keep building coalitions, keep challenging the status quo. And born out of our love for our country, keep fighting to build a country and a nation.”
So what does Harris’ decision mean for the presidential race in 2028? It seems almost inconceivable that Democrats will double down on her badly failed candidacy, but because of her name recognition, she does hold the lead for the nomination three-and-a-half years before voters elect a new president, for what that’s worth. She could make the case that she lost because she was allotted only 107 days to run against Trump, but how many people believe she would have won if given time to run a full campaign? In fact, there is good reason to believe her defeat in a more typical presidential race would have been even more resounding. In 2020, she was the most well-funded primary candidate but bowed out before a single vote was cast. And no one voted for her in the 2024 primaries, either.
As of now, the primary field for 2028 is already starting to take shape, with several candidates preparing to throw their hats into the ring, likely after the 2026 midterm elections. Among them are former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, governors Gavin Newsom of California, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Wes Moore of Maryland, as well as senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Ruben Gallego of Arizona. All of them have been visiting early-voting states. The field is so wide open that unknown Hawaii Governor Josh Green told NBC News recently that he is seriously considering a run at the top job. And there could be others from outside the political realm as the left looks to find its own Trump.
As to the matter of Harris’ continuing electability, The New York Times asserts that Democratic leaders in California “have been aiming to put Ms. Harris and former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in their collective rearview mirror.” If she runs once more, she will have to answer for her see-no-evil, speak-no-evil loyalty to an addled Joe Biden, her statement that there was nothing she could think of to differentiate herself from him, and, of course, losing all seven battleground states. What evidence is there to suggest anything would be different the next time around?
One apparent difference is that, with her book about her time in the White House set to be released, Harris is reportedly planning to do interviews and appear on podcasts later this year. One wonders if that will actually enhance or erode her position. As has famously been repeated over the years, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. Perhaps that’s the real reason she avoided the media last year.
“I will remain in that fight,” Kamala Harris wrote in the closing line of her statement announcing that she would not run for governor. Considering she has been harder to locate than Waldo of “Where’s Waldo” fame since her stinging defeat by the now-47th president, that declaration likely holds about as much meaning as the signature word salads that defined her candidacy in 2024.