Let’s Nix Newsom and Pritzker

It’s astonishing to me that governors Gavin Newsom and JB Pritzker are presumptive front runners for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Their records in California and Illinois are horrible and they’d be easy prey for whoever the Republican nominee is post-Trump.

The other day in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, an old-fashioned center-right Republican operative, did a masterful take down of them both. It was such a devastating indictment that it should be required reading for every Democratic politico in the country. In a way, Rove has done my party a huge service by gathering the data that makes Newsom and Pritzker unelectable.

Great hair. Not much else.

Rove did such a good job that I might risk angering the gods of fair usage by quoting from him at length. So, let me summarize his arguments.

Here’s Rove’s take on Newsom’s record after eight years as governor:

  • California’s population has actually declined since 2020 and as a result the state will lose Congressional seats for the first time since 1850.
  • The U.S. News & World Report’s annual “Best States” ranking puts California at No. 32 on its economy, 42 on fiscal stability, 45 on growth, 46 on employment, and dead last for opportunity.
  • The Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index ranked California 48th overall. Only New Jersey and New York have worse tax systems.
  • U.S. News ranked the state 36th in Pre-K-12 education and 43rd on public safety.
  • Drawing on Bureau of Labor Statistics state-by-state price indexes, the Virtual Capitalist’s average grocery cost index pegged California as the nation’s third most expensive state in July 2025.  
  • Using Redfin data, Forbes found in September that the median California home cost $906,500, nearly twice the national average of $462,206.
  • After 15 years and nearly $7 billion in federal funding for the Central Valley High-Speed Rail project, workers haven’t laid a foot of track. 

And then Rove moved on to Pritzker’s record:

Massive inherited wealth and a lousy record.
  • Like Newsom, Pritzker is presiding over a shrinking state. Illinois had 18 representatives in 2018, when Pritzker was elected. That number is down to 17 and is expected to be 16 after the 2030 census.
  • In the U.S. News “Best State” rankings, Illionois was No. 35 for opportunity, 42 for the economy and last for long-term fiscal stability. 
  • The looming fiscal disaster posed by underfunded public pensions is a large reason why a 2023 Illinois Policy Institute found that Illinois was the state with the second-highest number of businesses per capita fleeing to other states in 2023. Under Pritzker the state lost Boeing’s headquarters to Virginia and Caterpillar’s to Texas.

And Rove didn’t even get into their records on social issues. Any successful Democratic politician in California or Illinois would have had to have taken positions on issues like transgender matters that won’t play well with a general national electorate. See Harris, Kamala.

Rove concludes: “Mr. Newsom has great hair and Mr. Pritzker a vast fortune. But neither will matter nearly as much as their records as governor. Neither man can credibly claim that he has a solid record of economic achievement. That may not matter much to Democratic primary voters. It will in November 2028.”

The sooner these two get the word that they should move to the sidelines the better. I assume that, given the massive egos involved here, that message will need to be sent loud and clear in the early primaries. I doubt either man is self-aware enough to stay out of the race.

My party should focus on electable moderates like Rahm Emanuel, Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg and others.

That’s it for this week, kids. Have a nice weekend.

Published by dave cieslewicz

Madison/Upper Peninsula based writer. Mayor of Madison, WI from 2003 to 2011.

7 thoughts on “Let’s Nix Newsom and Pritzker

  1. I don’t think either of these guys would be good candidates either, but Dave, take a step back. Be honest with yourself. Do you really think that Pete Buttigieg, a gay man, and Rahm Emanuel, a career politico/Wall Street insider who volunteered for the Israel Defense Forces, are more electable than Newsom and Pritzker?

    No. You want to believe they are more electable because you prefer them. The only talking point that Rove listed that might matter is the fact that people are leaving Illinois & California — the rest reads like a bunch of factoids from a high school debate. Nobody cares about unfunded pension obligations or what U.S. News thinks about Illinois’ education system. Have you not been watching the past decade of American politics?

    Like

      1. My ideal would be someone who emerges out of nowhere and doesn’t speak in conventional political terms, but if I had to choose among the traditional candidates, at least Beshear, Shapiro and Whitmer have demonstrated they can win on tough terrain. I have no reason to believe they’ll be great presidents, but I’m not in a position to be picky.

        Like

      2. I’d also be fine with any of those choices and I think it’d be great to have an unconventional candidate as you suggest. But don’t dismiss Emanuel or Buttigieg. Emanuel has taken the moderate lane for himself. I’m not sure how wide that lane might be, but with everybody else going left (or at least not openly calling themselves centrists) he might have an advantage in the primaries. Also, he’s just one tough SOB, which will appeal to even some progressives who just want to win and who want a guy who won’t be pushed around in the White House. Buttigieg is, admittedly, more of a sentimental choice. He inspires optimism the way Obama did in ’08. And he’s the most articulate pol of his generation the way Bill Clinton was in ’92. I know, people aren’t in an idealistic mood these days. But maybe in two years that kind of idealistic approach will look fresh again.

        Like

Leave a comment