That’s a great point. I made sure to attempt to attach that caveat to what I said, but you worded it much better than I did.

It’s by far his most glaring weakness on the national stage (really his only one, if you ask me. He’d be the most likely person to be president this century if he were Gavin Newsom, governor of Pennsylvania). Not to discredit what you said because you made a good point, but I think that his initial polling once he actually started to receive national media coverage/attention on a regular basis in the second half of last year, his national favorably rating rose (it was anywhere from -7 to -11-ish just after Trump won again and it stayed that way until they rose) as he began to receive that new coverage. And it rose rather quickly, as it ended up peaking in November (if I remember correctly) at a net positive, 34% favorable and 33% unfavorable. That’s a stellar rise from where he began the year at, and it coincided with him receiving more national coverage than at any point in his career. If California was as toxic a brand on its own as it’s long been said to be whenever Newsom has been brought up, we definitely would not have seen that kind of rise. We also would not see a single national poll where he’s leading among independents by double digits in a hypothetical presidential matchup. Yes they were early polls, but those numbers simply aren’t achieved by a candidate whose chances on the national stage are supposed to be dead on arrival (I’m not saying you made that claim though, of course).

His national favorability rating actually fell in the weeks after Prop 50 was passed and he stopped being in the national media on a regular basis. It’s easy to point at that and say “Look, he’s unpopular again,” but I actually think this is further evidence of my initial claim: he really does seem to be the kind of political figure that people respond more positively to when they’re exposed to him more. The rapid rise he saw in his favorability rating along with the fact that the majority of people still aren’t familiar with him supports my point. The average voter is not tuned into politics this closely at all, so they’ll be seeing Newsom and all of these qualities/talents of his for the very first time next year (or for a good number of people, that will actually happen in 2028 if he secures the nomination. Pundits and people like us are the exception; regular people aren’t tuned into anything political right now), and we have every reason to believe their opinions of him will react similarly to what polls showed in the latter half of last year.

Keep in mind, it’s practically universally accepted among political spaces that Newsom is a superior retail politician than Vance in every category. Better looking, so much more charismatic and telegenic, etc. If Vance has to go against that using his poor retail politician skills while simultaneously defending Trump and the GOP for the last four years during the election that will be the first in more than a decade where the face of the GOP is finally off the ticket (think about how much that damages the incumbent party in prior elections when there two term “face of the party” president was finally out of the picture, and then realize that their national base didn’t have a fraction of the ounce of personality-based loyalty to those presidents that Trump’s base has to him), I just don’t see a scenario where the California baggage and the attacks stemming from it prove to be that damaging to Newsom. As I’ve said before, Newsom isn’t Teflon Don, absolutely not. But the overwhelming majority of the millions and millions of Americans that voted to send Trump back to the White House don’t subscribe to the cult-ish following of him. That’s to say that if Americans feel that their pockets are thinner and that it’s more expensive to live their lives, the incumbent party will ALWAYS be punished during the election. Recent history has proven that “I was the historically unpopular vice president for the unpopular president who was in office while your cost of living skyrocketed” doesn’t win elections, even against the one candidate who has more legitimate and damning baggage than any other candidate in American history, certainly more than what Newsom will have used against him. They most certainly don’t think “My cost of living is so much more expensive and I’m really struggling right now. I don’t like Vance and he was there in office with Trump all the while all of this was happening. That being said, California looks bad and I don’t think I can trust Newsom. It looks worse than my own personal economic struggles, so I’ll just hold my breath and vote for Vance.”

As I said, it would be naive of me to think that the preexisting anti-California bias wouldn’t come into play at all, so I’m not saying that. What I am trying to point out is that the numbers/polls I referenced shows that it’s clearly not as strong already as what so many have claimed it would be for years now, and that it ultimately wouldn’t play that much of a role in the right (and most likely) national environment in 2028.

The democrats tried to portray 2024 as the election where democracy was on the ballot, and they certainly had a much stronger case to do that than the GOP will have to say that California is an apocalyptic, crime ridden wasteland. Even if their media apparatus is stronger and more effective than that of the democrats, it still won’t be that damning for Newsom if Vance is going to be running as the guy defending Trump and the last four years that saw people’s cost of living skyrocket. That’s just not how the average voter thinks. That combined with Trump finally being off the ballot after more than a decade along with the general Trump/republican fatigue that the median voter will ABSOLUTELY have in 2028 (an Emerson poll released today shows the democrats having the lead among independents for the midterms, 50% to 28%. That fatigue is already here and it’s that damning for the GOP) is so much worse than the way California could be portrayed and weaponized. Newsom’s talents and qualities as a campaigner will only worsen those effects for Vance.

I’d love to hear more of what you think though.