893: Newsom vs. Whitmer
Democrats are giving the kids unlimited screen time
“Is ordinary politics the right response to Trump, or do Democrats need to do something different?”
Answering this question is “The Democratic Divide That Could Decide 2026 (and 2028)” according to
. And he provides a case study in how to think about it:Perhaps the best way to understand this divide is to look at the recent actions of two high-profile, prospective Democratic presidential candidates: California Governor Gavin Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Whitmer’s approach: She has been quiet on the national stage, choosing not to directly engage Trump in the national fights that have defined politics over the last eight months. Whitmer is not trying to be a foil to Trump or make herself the face of the opposition. Instead, she has kept her head down and focused on delivering for her state …
Newsom’s approach: By contrast, Newsom has transformed himself. Historically, he was a careful, strategic politician assiduously working toward an inevitable White House run — ambitious but cautious, with a “do no harm” approach. After Trump first won, Newsom even tried to work with him during the Los Angeles fires.
That’s all changed. Newsom is now omnipresent. He launched a podcast featuring edgy, uncomfortable interviews with people like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. He’s adopted a pugnacious social media presence that openly mocks Trump …
This is a bit of a Rorschach test. Some very online progressives may come away from this description thinking Newsom is looking good. Most of our readers - and most Americans - likely come away thinking Whitmer looks better.
Back to Pfeiffer:
What It Means in Practice
Where you land on this question drives strategy. It shapes how you approach every tactical decision and determines how much risk you’re willing to take.
If you believe this could be the end of the country as we know it, you’re willing to take more risks, break with prior practice, and smash old norms because you believe there’s less to lose.
If you think Trump is terrible but survivable, you’ll be more risk-averse and stick closer to precedent.
Pfeiffer sides with Newsom. I think the structure he sets up here is brilliant, he just has it exactly backwards.
Choose Your Fighter
My kids can get upset when I deny them screen time.
I love them completely, and get a natural impulse to give in so they won't be upset. But I love them so much that I don’t.
It is (much!) better for them in the long run to complain about getting less screen time than their friends.
The Whitmer vs. Newsom situation is similar. Pfeiffer’s readers surely feel much better about Newsom having a “pugnacious social media presence that openly mocks Trump” than about Whitmer being “focused on delivering for her state.”
Just like they felt better about Kamala’s celebrity-infused Brat Summer than they did about Joe Manchin or Jared Golden. But, of course, five more Manchins and five more Goldens would have our country in a much better place.
The Sad Case for Newsom
A major data point in the case for the Newsom path is his recent polling surge. UC Irvine found his job approval surging from 38% in June to 56% in July after clashing with Trump. Here’s what UC Irvine’s polling director said about voters: "They're concerned about his record as governor. But given the standoff with the president, they're giving him credit for that."
In a state where Kamala got 59%, voters think their Democratic governor is doing a poor job of governing but most anti-Trump voters are temporarily favorable towards him. That’s the case for the Newsom path?
Meanwhile, Whitmer has maintained high favorability with Democrats (90%) and Independents (66%) while picking up more than a third of Republicans (35%). Whitmer’s overall 63% approval is fifteen points higher than Kamala’s vote share last year.
I love America so much, and fear the risk of Trump so much, to resist the urge to just cave in to online impulses. That case was wrong in 2020, it was wrong in 2022, it was wrong in 2024, and it would be wrong again in 2028.
893 days until the first presidential primary votes are counted.
Whitmer is a much better Governor than Newsom. I think she’d be a better President.
But it has little to do with the last 8 months. Whitmer is the “fix the damn roads” candidate. She’s worked to gain credibility with the voters in her state, even those who voted against her.
Newsom is not that.
Right now though we (Americans, elected officials, and Democrats) have two essential tasks. 1) Mitigate the harm of the Trump Presidency which is continually pressing for weaknesses and looking to expand and entrench unlawful power. 2) Decisively win the next election(s)
Newsom has been pretty good at #1, especially in how he dealt with the national guard and military deployment in LA. His mocking of Trump makes MAGA & Fox News play defense instead of going on offense. That probably distracts MAGA & the Trump administration somewhat off balance helping #1 as well. And maybe with the 18-24 young people vote, his continual mocking reduces the coolness of MAGA leading to a mild benefit to #2.
Whitmer’s work with Trump has reduced harm to her state (getting grants released, support after severe ice storms, etc) and also makes it easier to win in Michigan in ‘26.
I don’t think we should be pitting their strategies up against each other at this juncture.
A more important question is how should the Senate support both tasks in the debt ceiling fight?
I’m open to ideas.
Mine is to demand the Senate revoke the blanket tariffs or force a government shutdown. Blanket tariffs are bad policy. They are already costing jobs (see John Deere) and as well as inflation. Their impact is felt all over the country. Doing something now about it would show that Democrats are willing to fight for people and take risks. That’s what leadership is about.
It has a side benefit of emphasizing the fraudulent and unconstitutional use of emergencies that the President is doing on so many issues to circumvent Congress, the judiciary, and the states.