Kamala Harris, currently garnering about half of California voters’ approval, has assigned herself a summer homework of strategizing her political future. Hailing from a stint as vice president, where she stumbled at the polls losing by a narrow 1.6% in the popular vote, one might ponder if she’s ready to shoulder the burdensome complexities that the office of California’s governor presents. Does she willingly want to trade the prospect of usurping Donald Trump’s presidency for the governor’s chair? Is she equipped to handle the extensive details and intricate issues that any governor of California inevitably faces?
A hefty minimum sum of $100 million to be even considered a reliable bet for the governor’s post is among the many thoughts trickling down Harris’s mind. While she watches with discontent as President Trump sits at the helm of a government operating in an antagonistic manner, far-removed from her own approach, crunch time looms. To bow out of the 2028 presidential race would mean to squander the slight edge she maintains as a candidate who was just barely defeated in the past. Erasing her credibility could also spur regret among the once loyal 2024 Trump voters.
Moreover, running for governor implies a commitment to complete a full term in office if victorious. A breach of this promise might stamp her credibility with a notorious seal of the ‘promise breaker’ in any future presidential primaries. Such binding commitments would invariably bar her way out of the presidential contention of 2028—a predicament seldom encountered by any California Democrat before.
As Harris inches closer to her 63rd birthday on Election Day 2026–an age at which many consider retirement–could she commit herself to the nitty-gritty of California’s concerns? Can she afford to hush her national ambitions throughout most of her 60s? Would she willingly delve into intricacies varying from electric vehicle mandates to healthcare provisions like Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants?
No doubt, Harris projects an image of a superficial politician. There are bare traces of significant accomplishments dotting her six-year tenure as state attorney general or her four-year vice presidency. Although substantial in nature, some deeds are invariably ignored. For example, during the financial predicament between 2009 and 2012, she utilized California’s demographic heft to augment its potion of a nation-wide mortgage settlement. Eventually, she managed to uplift it from a meager $4 billion to an impressive $18 billion.
This unprecedented maneuver alleviated the foreclosure threat engulfing numerous mortgage holders, thus, protecting an indeterminate though large number of Californians. Despite these, her tenure earned the reputation of being unremarkable due to the harsher assignments of being the vice president. Her portrayal as lightweight, a result of certain interview responses, misrepresents her to some extent and gubernatorial contenders would do well not to underestimate her.
Yet, the crucial question that persists is Harris’s level of commitment to confronting and solving state issues. From the fate of the semi-constructed bullet train to the urgent topic of delivering care to indigent immigrants, how vested is she in seeking out solutions? The answer remains shrouded in uncertainty. Not many, perhaps not even Harris herself, seems privy to it.
This unaired mystery surrounding Harris becomes rather vital in a campaign where former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and past state Attorney General Xavier Becerra have exhibited an interest in grappling with major issues. Just like these candidates, former state Senate President Toni Atkins, and earlier state Controller Betty Yee are also appreciated for their concentrated efforts.
If Harris does decide to join the race and argue her case against these opponents, including Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, the chances of her being labeled the lightweight of her reputation are rather high. This could undermine Harris’s potential of being perceived as a sturdy politician.
Running for the post of governor could, therefore, pose a significant risk for Harris. The campaign might jeopardize her standing within national-level politics, regardless of the election results. This could render her a mere shadow of the political heavyweight that she once was.
Despite a noticeable success in fetching an increased share of the national mortgage settlement during her stint as Attorney General, her tenure seems marred by her less than impressive record as vice president. Her lacklustre political profile fuels the perception of Harris as a superficial politician, one who seems engrossed in running for higher offices rather than focusing on resolving pressing issues.
The twin burden of fulfilling her promise to serve full term as governor if elected and maintaining her stature in national politics seems to weigh heavily on Harris. Abandoning any promises she makes might tag her as unreliable, possibly tainting her future political aspirations.
It seems rather uncertain whether Harris could stomach the intricate details of Californian politics and administer effective solutions. It’s questionable whether her expertise extends to a diverse range of issues from electric vehicle mandates to providing Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants. Ultimately, only time will reveal if Harris possesses the fortitude to handle the demanding role of governorship whilst maintaining her national standing.
Perhaps one of the most significant concerns hanging over Harris as she contemplates her future is whether she is willing to forgo her national political ambitions to focus on California’s pressing issues. With the frequency of interviews where she seemed lightweight, her legitimacy as a robust politician is under serious debate. This speculation could potentially cripple her chances in the race.
Evidently, Harris is faced with a host of major decisions that will shape her political future. These decisions involve striking a delicate balance between ambition and commitment, risk and opportunity, national prominence and local relevance. At this juncture, only a careful consideration of these factors would guide Harris in shaping her impending political journey.
Harris’s documented foray into solving major economic crises, and her underplayed success as state attorney general, make the race for governorship more competitive. But it also foreshadows a significant risk for her if she does decide to take the plunge. For no matter the outcome of the governor’s race, Harris’s status as a significant player on the national political stage could be at considerable risk.