The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

At the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his landslide victory on Proposition 50, the blowback ballot that pushed the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

Newsom is running for the White House, and has been for the better part of a year, though he won’t say it out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here, the two iron out some of their differences.

Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom repeat, meet the moment and, on purpose, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time as possible in the Sierra, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light years away in political terms. But I think he has a chance, and is now the frontrunner for the nomination. He is setting himself up as the quick-to-beat foil for President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump held as a ghost, making Newsom the US presence.

And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom was leading by three points. Although respondents unexpectedly still chose Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

To me it shows that he is popular across the country. But you warned that Californians have a hard time attracting voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill his contender status?

Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “won’t,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently deleted from my political vocabulary.

That said, I wouldn’t drop more than a dime — which may eventually be worth something as they are phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

Look, I don’t give in to anyone in my love for California. (And I have the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I am mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who have a California return address. You can be sure that whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a lot to say about the state’s much higher than elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

Not a good look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! – I compare it to the fleeting imagination that for a time seriously discussed lawyer, convicted fraudster and rhetorical abuser Michael Avenatti as a Democratic presidential contender. At some point—and we’re still years away—people will judge the candidates with their heads, not guts.

As for the polls, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those sounds matter at this extremely early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early frontrunners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

Chabria: I’m not arguing the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me over it.

They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe a little hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains it. They vote on memes.

There is no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record – our current president has a criminal one and it didn’t make a difference.

But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad-nauseam, that democracy is in danger. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his cabinet does not show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear that he is a Christian nationalist who would like to deport almost every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

Being a Californian may not be the disadvantage it historically has been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

But our governor has an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, has just been arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think it hurts him?

Barabak: It shouldn’t.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning comes up, there’s no reason why the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do highly evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in a granular way, or as some chin-straightening political scientist might have it. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

There are of course many who would reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he is the Republican nominee. The same goes for Democrats who would vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the big leagues, so he has that advantage over the governor.)

But I’m talking about those voters who are at stake — those who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them the most.

Granted, the dynamic is a little different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen the whole dated/married phenomenon time and time again. Like in 2004, when many Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see that electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — is right up there next to affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 picks.

Chabria: Undoubtedly, affordability will be a major issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to decline. And we will certainly hear criticism of California, much of which is fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper solutions than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. what is the plan

It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and more attainable.

The Democrat who can articulate that vision while simultaneously continuing to fight the authoritarian creep currently eating away at our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of the origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many initially saw as a long shot.

Mark, are there any prospects for 2028 that you are watching particularly closely?

Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which includes an open seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way in shaping the dynamics in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats watching the race — too many to list here. Will that number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We will see.

I agree with you that, to have any chance of winning in 2028, whoever the Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas about how to make people’s lives substantially better. Endangered democracy and terrifying authoritarianism aside, it is still the economy, stupid.

Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivant governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his sharp memes and snappy Trump takedowns. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to sob his way to the White House.

I’d bet more than a penny on that.