Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Kamala Harris says she is not running for California governor

After months of speculation about her political future, former Vice President and San Francisco Bay Area native Kamala Harris has ruled out one option: governor of California.

Harris said Wednesday that she will not enter the 2026 race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is serving his second term and cannot run again. Harris did not say what she plans to do next, but her choice is the clearest sign yet that she may still be considering a third run for president.

"I love this state, its people, and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election," Harris said in a statement.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94August 1, 2025 1:00 AM

"I love this state, its people, and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election," Harris said in a statement. "For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans."

Since her loss to President Trump in November, Harris, 60, has spent most of this year out of the public eye, settling back into life in Los Angeles and speaking with confidants about her options: run for president for a third time in 2028, launch a gubernatorial campaign or end a two-decade career in elected office and enter the private sector. She has reportedly written a memoir and considered starting a nonprofit focused on young voters and democracy or a political action committee to help Democrats.

Veteran Democratic strategist Sean Clegg, a long-time adviser to Harris, said the former vice president weighed the run but ultimately decided that her next chapter would be focused on other political pursuits outside of elected office.

“I think she listened to her gut … Obviously she saw a huge opportunity so she had to consider it, but at the end of the day she just didn’t feel called,” said Clegg, who has worked on Harris’ campaigns since 2008. “Until January of this year … she’s been in public office continuously for 22 years and has spent her entire career since she graduated law school in public service. I think she’s interested in exploring how she can have an impact from the outside for a while.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), among the Democrats she has spoken with in recent months as she weighed a run, said he knew it was a "difficult decision" for Harris. But he said he was hopeful Harris will be a key player in next year's midterm elections.

"I think she feels at this moment she needs to help Democrats win back Congress and help Democrats across the country. She feels a real responsibility about where the country is headed," said Garcia, who has known Harris for more than a decade. Harris swore him in when he was first elected mayor of Long Beach in 2014 before he became a member of Congress.

"A lot of us want to see her help us engage in the midterms and help the House, raise money [for candidates] and got to battleground districts," he said.

Serving as the governor of California, a bulwark in the anti-Trump movement, would have given Harris another shot at her political rival and an opportunity to rewrite the end of her political story after a barrier-breaking career.

Harris was the first woman to be elected district attorney of San Francisco, the first woman to be elected California attorney general, the first woman of color to be elected to the U.S. Senate from California, and the first woman elected vice president of the United States under President Biden.

Harris would have entered the race with significant advantages, including name recognition and a vast national network of donors. But she would also have run with an unusual amount of baggage for a gubernatorial candidate, including her loss to Trump, which dampened enthusiasm for her candidacy among some party loyalists and fundraisers.

Without Harris, the field of candidates for the governor's mansion will still lack a candidate with real star power. Though the list of Democrats running reads like a who's-who of political power in the Golden State, none are household names.

The Democrats running include Toni Atkins, a former Assembly speaker and Senate president pro tem; Xavier Becerra, former California attorney general and Biden Cabinet secretary; Stephen Cloobeck, a philanthropist and businessman; Eleni Kounalakis, the state's lieutenant governor; Katie Porter, a former congresswoman from Orange County; Tony Thurmond, the superintendent of public instruction; Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles; and Betty Yee, the former state controller.

by Anonymousreply 1July 30, 2025 7:51 PM

Does she seriously think she has a good shot in 2028?

by Anonymousreply 2July 30, 2025 7:52 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3July 30, 2025 7:52 PM

Oh god she's going to run again, right?

by Anonymousreply 4July 30, 2025 7:53 PM

[quote] Does she seriously think she has a good shot in 2028?

Even Hillary wasn't that delusional.

by Anonymousreply 5July 30, 2025 7:54 PM

If she were to run and lose, it would end her political career. If she were to run and win, being incompetent as governor would end her political career.

It was a no-win situation.

by Anonymousreply 6July 30, 2025 7:56 PM

She's much younger than Hilary was after her loss. She didn't lose massively, she only had 100 days to whip up a pretty decent campaign, under dire circumstances outside of her control. It's not her fault that Biden stayed put far beyond what was feasible, and lied about his state of health.

There's still goodwill for here, at least within the Dem rank-and-file. It's a long shot but not unheard of.

by Anonymousreply 7July 30, 2025 7:57 PM

I'm as liberal/progressive as anyone but I would not under any circumstances support her for president. She ran a terrible campaign and stood for nothing other than I'm Not Trump.

There are so many better candidates in the mix.

by Anonymousreply 8July 30, 2025 7:58 PM

Maybe she should run for dog catcher. Something that isn’t three grades above her skill set.

by Anonymousreply 9July 30, 2025 8:00 PM

Biden should never have anointed her the Dem candidate.

by Anonymousreply 10July 30, 2025 8:07 PM

Democrats really need a better answer to Trumpism than just "Let's keep doing the same thing we always do."

by Anonymousreply 11July 30, 2025 8:10 PM

[quote] If she were to run and lose, it would end her political career.

Not necessarily.

by Anonymousreply 12July 30, 2025 8:18 PM

[quote] Biden should never have anointed her the Dem candidate.

In July, one month shy of the convention, there was no realistic chance that, even without Biden's endorsement, the party would have selected someone other than the vice president, the first Black, the first female, to hold the position.

by Anonymousreply 13July 30, 2025 8:22 PM

I didn’t think she was the best candidate, but she was the best chance under the circumstances. She cleaned Trump’s clock in the debate. For the one or two missteps and made in a short campaign, she did nothing as horrific as Trump’s Madison.Square Garden rally of the RNC.

America made a disgusting choice. Just because she wasn’t perfect doesn’t change the fact that the electorate opted for a piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 14July 30, 2025 8:26 PM

Biden should have announced he wasn't running immediately after the 2022 midterms so that voters would have a chance to make the choice through a primary contest. He did not, and he failed to prosecute Trump for January 6th, and those are the main two reasons why his legacy will remained tarnished forever.

All of this is Biden's fault, but that doesn't mean we need Kamala Harris to fix it. We need a complete do-over with new candidates.

by Anonymousreply 15July 30, 2025 8:26 PM

[quote] Biden should have announced he wasn't running immediately after the 2022 midterms so that voters would have a chance to make the choice through a primary contest.

Hindsight is 20/20. but after the much better than expected performance by Democrats in the midterms, which was widely reported as a vindication of Biden, there was no great clamor then for Biden to bow out.

by Anonymousreply 16July 30, 2025 8:29 PM

"Biden should never have anointed her the "border czar."

Fixed.

I have a feeling she doesn't want to deal with the last two years of a Trump administration and and even more unhinged POTUS. You know she'll become a focal point for his rage, and since she's a woman, he'll come at her with all guns blazing. It's hard enough to run the wealthiest, most important state in the Union without having a diseased, psycopathic maniac dogging you every step of the way.

by Anonymousreply 17July 30, 2025 8:34 PM

If I were her I would forget about politics and go the Hollywood route like the Clintons and Obamas. Speak at the DNC and help candidates where you can but get the podcast and book deals and speaking engagements.

by Anonymousreply 18July 30, 2025 8:34 PM

[quote] She's much younger than Hilary was after her loss. She didn't lose massively, she only had 100 days to whip up a pretty decent campaign, under dire circumstances outside of her control. It's not her fault that Biden stayed put far beyond what was feasible, and lied about his state of health.

There's still goodwill for here, at least within the Dem rank-and-file. It's a long shot but not unheard of.

I’ll also add the election was rigged by Elon Musk but we’re not ready for that conversation.

by Anonymousreply 19July 30, 2025 8:38 PM

R16 he had the signs of dementia by that point. His inner circle knew it. Dementia doesn't happen overnight, the signs start early and they're unmistakable. He should have bowed out. Hindsight has nothing to do with it, it was on him and his family and closest advisors to make the right call for the good of the country. They chose to cling to power and prestige at all costs instead, and now we are all paying the price.

And there's no excusing his failure to prosecute Trump. None. He should have pulled out all the stops to make that happen and he chose the milquetoast route instead. Feckless, spineless, and completely useless. Ne reputation is ruined because of it.

by Anonymousreply 20July 30, 2025 8:39 PM

Kamala is an absolute clown. I don't really understand why anyone thinks she was ever Presidential material. She barely makes any points when speaking (word salad worthy of the ridicule it has received) and isn't unlike some of the "out there" professors I had in college that made me wonder how they had gotten as far as they did. There are much better options.

by Anonymousreply 21July 30, 2025 8:42 PM

[quote] he had the signs of dementia by that point. His inner circle knew it.

Everyone who had seen the videos of his public appearances during his term knew it. Unfortunately, there were many people, including on DL, who chose to lie for political reasons, denying that the irrefutable decline in his mental acuity was happening.

by Anonymousreply 22July 30, 2025 8:46 PM

R17, you fixed nothing. Harris was not appointed as the border czar. This was a right-wing false characterization of Biden asking her to look at the causes of immigration in the countries of origin. But Americans, you apparently included, lap up falsehoods.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23July 30, 2025 8:46 PM

[quote]but after the much better than expected performance by Democrats in the midterms, which was widely reported as a vindication of Biden, there was no great clamor then for Biden to bow out.

Democratic voters didn't want him running for the last year and a half of his presidency. So, yes, there was some clamor. It was Pelosi and the party, along with the more democratic media that didn't want to hear it until it became completely unavoidable at the debate.

I think she should run again. She's very intelligent. What mistakes she made were from trying to be too centrist and tying herself to Biden's legacy 100%, which his team recommended she do. Biden did a terrible job of putting her in a good light as well.

by Anonymousreply 24July 30, 2025 8:49 PM

And Kamala's only talked about the election once since she left office. Compare that with the Biden's, who have lamented Joe's being denied the nomination he thought he was entitled to on a monthly basis since the election.

by Anonymousreply 25July 30, 2025 8:52 PM

[quote] I’ll also add the election was rigged by Elon Musk but we’re not ready for that conversation.

Funny, though, that he didn't rig the election for which he was most front & center, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April.

by Anonymousreply 26July 30, 2025 8:52 PM

En español, por favor.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27July 30, 2025 8:53 PM

[quote] Democratic voters didn't want him running for the last year and a half of his presidency.

Link, please, to contemporaneous polling.

by Anonymousreply 28July 30, 2025 8:53 PM

R22: At some VERY partisan sites, the delusion ran strong. When Biden finally withdrew after that debate fiasco there were cries of "They stabbed MY Joe in the back!" Some of them are currently hoping Trump and Vance will be "convicted" so that the rightful winner, Harris, will take office.

by Anonymousreply 29July 30, 2025 8:57 PM

A cooking and lifestyle show on Netflix or Amazon Prime is next. Mama does the Indian fare, Kamala and her sister prep Soul and Caribbean food.

Her fan base would eat it up.

by Anonymousreply 30July 30, 2025 8:59 PM

Feb 2023 poll

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31July 30, 2025 8:59 PM

Dec 2023

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32July 30, 2025 8:59 PM

The Democrats denied things we were all seeing with our own eyes and that's the biggest thing lost them the election. Biden wasn't in cognitive decline. Harris was an amazing leader and would make the greatest president. Men are women and can compete in women's sports, and women are men and also birthing people , etc. Sure, a lot of this was inflamed by propaganda from the other side but this is the image the Dems walked out of the last election with. Kamala Harris was a TERRIBLE option. I voted for her and I'm embarrassed for myself and anyone who drank the Kool-aid..

by Anonymousreply 33July 30, 2025 8:59 PM

She and Meghan, Duchess of Montecito, should join forces and do a lifestyle show on Netflix. Think of the synergy!

by Anonymousreply 34July 30, 2025 9:00 PM

[quote] he had the signs of dementia by that point.

Hasn't most of the reporting been that his cognitive decline came a good deal later?

by Anonymousreply 35July 30, 2025 9:03 PM

The Mighty joe Biden idiot is still alive and well I see. And posting obsessively about his infatuation, as always.

by Anonymousreply 36July 30, 2025 9:04 PM

[quote]The Democrats denied things we were all seeing with our own eyes and that's the biggest thing lost them the election.

THIS. And the trolls asking for polling (which is easily findable) and questioning when dementia could have possibly started are doing the same, gaslighting us and trying to rewrite what we all saw 2022-2024.

HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RUN AND THEY KNEW IT.

by Anonymousreply 37July 30, 2025 9:06 PM

The Democrats have become the party of Don't trust your eyes and The world is coming to an end and it's gonna hurt you.

by Anonymousreply 38July 30, 2025 9:09 PM

Oh, yeah. It’s the Democrats who are saying to forget about Epstein, ignore the scorching heat, and not to worry about $5 trillion of debt. Shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 39July 30, 2025 9:14 PM

r23 -- In your huff of arrogant self-righteousness, you failed to notice that I put "border czar" in quotations. You're not an American and maybe not a native English speaker, so for your edification: the use of quotation marks is often used sarcastically and intended to undermine the meaning of the term, indicating it's bogus.

[QUOTE]Biden asking her to look at the causes of immigration in the countries of origin

Do you not see what a bullshit and useless pursuit this was? Poverty and lack of upward mobility or opportunity to make a living or a better living underpins migration. Fear of crime in some countries. Well, duh. It was ridiculous to have assigned her to this. It was undermining, IMO.

by Anonymousreply 40July 30, 2025 9:17 PM

Dems will chose a white male presidential candidate and a female black or latino VP candidate.

Let's stop pretending otherwise

by Anonymousreply 41July 30, 2025 9:18 PM

R41 And that's what's going to keep the Dems locked firmly behind because as was clearly established by the last elections, Americans don't give a fuck about skin color or gender when it comes to voting.

by Anonymousreply 42July 30, 2025 9:22 PM

I didn't like her in 2016 when she ran for Senate and won, defeating a good honest Latina Democrat. And I don't want the unscrupulous fake "black" shapeshifter to be governor of my state. She can never wash the blood of Gaza off her hands.

by Anonymousreply 43July 30, 2025 9:23 PM

[quote] Dems will chose a white male presidential candidate

I hope so, but that's a decision ultimately in the hands of Democratic primary & caucus voters.

by Anonymousreply 44July 30, 2025 9:23 PM

[quote] Americans don't give a fuck about skin color or gender when it comes to voting.

Define "Americans."

by Anonymousreply 45July 30, 2025 9:24 PM

B-B-B-But Republicans are worse! At least Dems aren't like them! Dems aren't the WORST party, guys, there's still another one that's even WORSE! So shut the fuck up about Democrats and stop asking why we keep losing because at least we're second worst!

by Anonymousreply 46July 30, 2025 9:25 PM

[quote]I hope so, but that's a decision ultimately in the hands of DNC backroom power brokers, aka "Superdelegates."

Fixed that typo for you, R44.

by Anonymousreply 47July 30, 2025 9:27 PM

R9- She has lower middle class credentials. Something akin to being the warden of a women's prison.

by Anonymousreply 48July 30, 2025 9:29 PM

R47, unless you are including the weirdness of 2024, when have superdelegates determined the Democratic nominee? We’ll wait for your answer.

by Anonymousreply 49July 30, 2025 9:33 PM

[quote] I hope so, but that's a decision ultimately in the hands of DNC backroom power brokers, aka "Superdelegates."

[quote] Fixed that typo for you, R44.

AI's response, R47:

[quote] For the 2024 Democratic National Convention, superdelegates (also known as automatic delegates or Party Leader and Elected Official - PLEO - delegates) are expected to make up about 16.5% of the total delegates, representing roughly 749 out of a total of 4,521 delegates.

[quote] However, it's crucial to note that superdelegates' power was curtailed in 2018. Previously, they could vote on the first ballot at the convention, potentially influencing the outcome before primary results were fully considered. Now, they are generally barred from voting on the first ballot unless the nomination is contested, meaning no candidate has secured a majority of the pledged delegates (earned through primaries and caucuses). If the convention goes to a second or subsequent ballot, then superdelegates would be able to vote.

[quote] Therefore, while superdelegates still constitute a notable percentage of the overall delegate count, their ability to influence the nomination process on the initial ballot has been significantly reduced, reflecting changes aimed at strengthening the role of primary and caucus voters in the selection of the Democratic presidential nominee.

by Anonymousreply 50July 30, 2025 9:33 PM

I am going to run for Governor of California in 2026.

I would make a great Governor!

by Anonymousreply 51July 30, 2025 9:35 PM

She probably saw her poll numbers. They do thorough research before deciding such things.

by Anonymousreply 52July 30, 2025 10:03 PM

I love Kamala, but I hope she does not run for president again. She is very qualified and would have far exceeded Trump. However, she lost. The country is not in the mood for a black female president. I wish it were, but it is not. And I want a winner. We cannot go through another Repig administration.

by Anonymousreply 53July 30, 2025 10:06 PM

"The country is not in the mood for a black female president."

But apparently it is in the mood for a convicted felon/pathological liar/sexual deviant/child rapist/insurrectionist/traitor.

God, I hate this country and the morons who populate it.

by Anonymousreply 54July 30, 2025 10:18 PM

R48 you're an idiot, but that was funny.

Who knew, MAGATS could be so elitist?

by Anonymousreply 55July 30, 2025 10:26 PM

[quote]"The country is not in the mood for an Asian female president."

r54 Fixed that for you.

by Anonymousreply 56July 30, 2025 10:27 PM

I'm in the minority, but I really like Kamala.

She seems nice.

In fact, I like her better than Obama, who always seemed disingenuous to me.

Kamala seems pretty sincere

by Anonymousreply 57July 30, 2025 10:28 PM

She did a hell a job with the cards she was dealt but, please, no. I don’t want to see her humiliated. There are better candidates. Hope she takes a cushy job and bows out.

by Anonymousreply 58July 30, 2025 10:37 PM

R57: except that she has lousy political skills. Yes, she won statewide in CA, and Clinton had wonderful numbers in dark blue New York. There are 48 other states.

by Anonymousreply 59July 30, 2025 11:02 PM

R44 I wish Democrats wouldn't vote for anyone based on their ethnicity but on their abilities as a leader. Isn't it pretty obvious that picking your candidates using DEI isn't working?

by Anonymousreply 60July 30, 2025 11:09 PM

Good riddance. Go screw up some private venture, lady.

by Anonymousreply 61July 31, 2025 2:05 AM

Unburdened for life!

by Anonymousreply 62July 31, 2025 2:08 AM

[QUOTE] a good honest Latina Democrat.

Shit, man! Loretta Sanchez? Tell us more.

by Anonymousreply 63July 31, 2025 7:54 AM

I don't think she'll run for president again. There's too much risk of being humiliated in the primary again. She'd be smart to position herself to be a future secretary of state under the next democrat president.

by Anonymousreply 64July 31, 2025 10:07 AM

Has r23 clocked back yet with more erroneous, unenlightening self-righteousness?

by Anonymousreply 65July 31, 2025 10:09 AM

[quote]Americans don't give a fuck about skin color or gender when it comes to voting.

Holy fuck. Are you being serious R42? Or just making a joke?

by Anonymousreply 66July 31, 2025 10:17 AM

I'm in CA and thought she would be good for the State. For the nation, this time she will not be nominated.

And, I am not a Newsom fan but I am starting to warm to his presidential nom.....however, I think Andy Beshear would be the perfect fit - he is a moderate and can bring in more votes I would love a Beshear/Buttigieg ticket. I think that would be a for sure winner.

by Anonymousreply 67July 31, 2025 11:43 AM

Boring candidates lose. Beshear doesn’t have what it takes.

by Anonymousreply 68July 31, 2025 12:11 PM

She'll never be President but the act of running multiple times isn't out of the question. Reagan ran for President four times.

by Anonymousreply 69July 31, 2025 1:30 PM

I think she’s hoping to be Attorney General in the next Dem Administration. That’s the job she really wanted anyway.

by Anonymousreply 70July 31, 2025 1:39 PM

[quote] I think she’s hoping to be Attorney General in the next Dem Administration

Isn't that a step down from Vice-President?

Come to think of it, so is being a Governor.

The only logical next steps for Kamala would be either President, or a Supreme Court Justice.

Anything else is like taking a step backwards, for her.

by Anonymousreply 71July 31, 2025 1:44 PM

[quote] She'll never be President but the act of running multiple times isn't out of the question. Reagan ran for President four times.

No Democrat has been the nominee and lost and then been the nominee again since Stevenson. No Republican has done that since Nixon. Reagan won both times he was the nominee.

by Anonymousreply 72July 31, 2025 1:45 PM

I’ll add that Trump is a special case because he both won and lost as the nominee before becoming the nominee again.

by Anonymousreply 73July 31, 2025 1:47 PM

good, the press and online community have been too harsh on her. let her keep her privacy

by Anonymousreply 74July 31, 2025 1:49 PM

[quote] ‘She had reasonable doubt:’ Why Kamala Harris isn't running for governor

Six months ago, Kamala Harris took a break from packing up the vice president’s residence to attend a quiet meeting on Capitol Hill with a group of Black congresswomen. She had advice for them on how to steel themselves for a second Trump administration.

“She said, ‘Make sure you are being authentic to yourself, and don’t do anything because someone is asking you to do that,’" recalled Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Democrat from Harris’ home state of California. “‘You do it because that’s what you want to do and that’s the right thing to do.’”

On Wednesday, Harris took her own advice.

“At the end of the day, when she did her own gut check — to put it in the prosecutorial parlance — she had reasonable doubt,” said Sean Clegg, one of her longest-serving political advisers.

Those words in January ultimately proved prescient, when she announced she would not seek the top post in her home state. But since that meeting on the Hill, a Harris gubernatorial bid had become almost a foregone conclusion in California political circles. Her deliberations froze the 2026 contest to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom in a state of paralysis. Public polling consistently showed Harris would start the race as the prohibitive favorite.

Ultimately, however, Harris’ heart wasn’t in it.

Her interest in the post waxed and waned in the months since she left Washington. She returned home to a pile-up of crises: historic wildfires that encroached on her neighborhood, a hostile Trump administration that threatened to upend the state’s finances, an unprecedented clash over immigration enforcement.

The former vice president was choosy on when to put herself back in the public eye. She made a pair of visits to affected fire zones and put out sporadic statements denouncing Trump’s actions. But her intermittent appearances were just as often in front of national groups or audiences outside of California. Her decision not to attend the California Democratic Party’s political convention in May led party activists to wonder if the gubernatorial bid was simply a back-up plan.

At the beginning of the summer, Harris and her team in earnest ran through what it would take to mount a campaign for governor. She would have to raise roughly $40-50 million for the primary, maybe $75 million or more in total. They looked at the political math: With her universal name identification and fundraising chops, she would almost certainly be among the top-two finishers in the June primary. But if a second Democrat advanced past the primary, under California’s jungle-primary rules, she would not necessarily have a glide path in November; Republican voters could rally behind Harris’ challenger.

Still, her team was confident she could mount a winning governor’s campaign, and she was hearing encouragement from national Democrats who wanted to avoid a messy intra-party feud in a blue state.

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 75July 31, 2025 2:07 PM

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.”

by Anonymousreply 76July 31, 2025 2:07 PM

I’m also not running for governor of California, but no one is making a big deal of it.

by Anonymousreply 77July 31, 2025 2:17 PM

[quote]She's much younger than Hilary was after her loss. She didn't lose massively, she only had 100 days to whip up a pretty decent campaign, under dire circumstances outside of her control. It's not her fault that Biden stayed put far beyond what was feasible, and lied about his state of health.

The only reason she didn't lose massively is because her competition was trump and only trump. Don't for one fucking second think she'd win a primary. She did absolutely NOTHING as a vice president. Which is good, because she's an idiot. She was in charge of the border. Kamala and Joe's idea of handling the border was to leave it wide open. She REFUSED to go down to the border and had to be SHAMED into it. And even then she was PATHETIC

Her laughing, cackling and the word salad nonsense. Americans have had enough of her

by Anonymousreply 78July 31, 2025 2:30 PM

I guess weekends begin early in Pittsburgh, r78.

Meanwhile, when will your child raping president release the Epstein files?

by Anonymousreply 79July 31, 2025 2:44 PM

Kamala Harris won't run for California governor.

Why that's bad news for Joe Biden.

by Anonymousreply 80July 31, 2025 3:56 PM

It was announced today that her book 107 Days about her run for the presidency is being published on 9/23.

by Anonymousreply 81July 31, 2025 4:25 PM

Please Democrats, please come up with someone better than Kamala next time. She might be a solid candidate but she's not a homerun. We need a homerun.

by Anonymousreply 82July 31, 2025 4:55 PM

AOC 2028!

by Anonymousreply 83July 31, 2025 4:58 PM

Why do losers always feel the need to release books on their campaigns?

by Anonymousreply 84July 31, 2025 5:10 PM

I'm delighted to hear that Harris is still "quick to laugh"!

by Anonymousreply 85July 31, 2025 5:26 PM

She had ardent backers?

by Anonymousreply 86July 31, 2025 5:29 PM

She wasn’t anybody’s preferred candidate. She was forced on everyone.

by Anonymousreply 87July 31, 2025 5:32 PM

$$$$$$$$, R84.

by Anonymousreply 88July 31, 2025 5:33 PM

[quote] Her laughing, cackling and the word salad nonsense. Americans have had enough of her

MAGA Talking Points at R78!

by Anonymousreply 89July 31, 2025 8:56 PM

I will always support The Kamala. Fuck the haters!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 90July 31, 2025 9:07 PM

[quote] The only reason she didn't lose massively is because her competition was trump and only trump.

Couldn't disagree more. Although it pains us to acknowledge, Trump has the special sauce that attracts voters unavailable to other politicians. That Trump became the first republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote since George W. Bush, running for reelection in the aftermath of 9/11, should tell us that Harris's only chance of winning was if her competition was someone other than Trump.

by Anonymousreply 91July 31, 2025 9:23 PM

[QUOTE]She was in charge of the border.

R78 - Please explain how, as Vice President (an office vested with no powers other than breaking a Senate tie), she could have effected any policy change on the border? I will remind you of bicameral GOP dominance that would have stymied any recommendations, such as, James Lankford's, one of your very own MAGAts. Do you remember him?

Sincere question, r78. Could you also please explain why a Republican Congress shot down a bill negotiated and co-authored by MAGAt Representative James Lankford (R-OK)? What was so awful about it?

by Anonymousreply 92July 31, 2025 11:14 PM

Look at R79, he can't accept the TRUTH. So, he's going to call me names and accuse me of being a republican.

He did the same shit 2 and 3 years ago when others and myself posted that, "Biden is too old to run again". And "Biden needs to have trump prosecuted for the insurrection". Looking back, we were 100% CORRECT.

R79 called anyone who criticizes the precious democrats, Boris or republicans. Which is stupid. We HATE the republicans and we know the democrats are USELESS as a party. We know that they haven't had any type of strategy in over 25 years. We know their entire plan is to just cross their fingers and hope there's a bigger voter turn out than ever before and that the majority votes for the democrats. We told you the democrats were going to lose. You stupidly, and ridiculously called us republicans.

Only a God damned fool would have refused to prosecute trump. But that's what Biden is. Biden even said, "if trump wins, he will destroy democracy" and then he did NOTHING to stop trump from running again. What a stupid, idiot. The dumbass democratic politicians did NOTHING to stop trump from running.

The democrats once again, devoted 100% to immigrants and the trans agenda. It's like they want to lose. Honestly. At this point they are nothing but organized opposition. Only the stupidest, laziest losers could lose to donald trump, TWICE

No one deserves the republicans. But America deserves so MUCH BETTER than the democratic party.

by Anonymousreply 93August 1, 2025 12:55 AM

What has America done to deserve so MUCH BETTER than the Democratic Party? On the contrary, and without giving any ground to Democrats, Americans have gotten far better than what they deserve after voting for Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump. The bill is coming due.

by Anonymousreply 94August 1, 2025 1:00 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!