Do Newsom and Kamala Really Hate Each Other? Impeachment and 2028 Math on RCP

RealClearPolitics on SiriusXM opens on the night of September 16 with host Andrew Walworth joined by RCP president Tom Bevan and Washington Bureau Chief Carl Cannon. The slate is two House votes: outgoing Texas Democrat Al Green's eighth attempt to impeach Donald Trump and what that attempt previews for after November. Rather than treating a single vote as gossip, the show frames the Hill's arithmetic around how Democrats try to manage the White House and the House majority at once, turning a Capitol Hill note into a strategy discussion that stretches to 2028.

Why Al Green's eighth try failed

Green's move ended in a familiar pattern: 18 Democrats voted with Republicans to table the resolution, 46 Democrats voted present, and the measure fell. As The Hill reported, the stated ground was the administration's aggressive deportation agenda, but the arithmetic beyond intent was more telling. Eight attempts reflect base demand; the tabling votes reflect leadership trying to brake with the general election in mind. The Washington Post's tally confirms Democrats are not monolithic on impeachment even among themselves.

The procedural detail backs that picture. The Clerk's Roll Call 298 for H. Res. 1486 was recorded at 4:46 p.m. with broad participation. The numbers are not symbolic but procedural: tabling blocks a vote on the merits and buys leadership time. That mechanics is the key to understanding Hakeem Jeffries' next lines, because leadership must stall the base without making a direct impeachment pledge.

Jeffries walks that fine line. Asked directly whether holding crooks accountable means impeachment on day one, his answer is neither in nor out: we haven't ruled anything in and we haven't ruled anything out on impeachment as accountability. He then delegates the frame to the Judiciary Committee led by Jamie Raskin and the Oversight Committee led by Robert Garcia; we will follow the facts, apply the law and be guided by the Constitution. As the RCP panel notes, that language tries to avoid closing the door to activists while not sounding hawkish to swing voters.

Why Democrats cannot quit impeachment

For the RCP table, the point is what happens if Democrats retake the majority after November. If they win the House, the base will automatically bring the impeachment expectation to the front, and leadership will have to manage it. Green's effort is thus more than a rehearsal; it is a preview. Jeffries' emphasis follows from there: equating holding crooks accountable with impeachment and then handing the calendar to committees both cools energy and keeps options open.

That ambivalence ties to a lesson from the 2024-2026 cycle. A full-blown impeachment drive can lock the media cycle in Washington and eclipse the economy and health care. It can also hand Republicans a grievance narrative. The line repeated on RCP — facts, law and Constitution — is, in this view, the safest way to outsource politics to process. But the safe route does not always satisfy the base; hence 18 yeas to table and 46 presents should be read as the numerical photograph of intraparty tension.

The show reminds listeners that Green is not alone; similar drafts are discussed in corridors but leadership applies a speed bump each time. The aim is to avoid alienating pro-impeachment voters in safe districts while not scaring suburban voters who decide competitive races. Jeffries' poetic closer, let the chips fall where they may, sums up that balance: process will decide where chips fall, no prejudgment now.

Do Newsom and Kamala really hate each other

The second big headline is personal but actually structural: do Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris actually hate each other. RCP keeps the headline as a question to mark the difference between gossip and strategy. The source is CNN's September 14 exclusive: Newsom says he will not run in 2028 if Harris does, citing a large overlap in base and donor pool. NBC News corroborated the line the same day, quoting Newsom that a simultaneous run would turn into a fight for supporters.

The Los Angeles Times compilation recalls that geography matters too. Both came up through San Francisco politics, share the California donor network, and appeal nationally to the same urban, college-educated donor base. Running at the same time would split each other's vote and trigger an expensive war of attrition. In that light, Newsom's calculation reads as a rational withdrawal, an insurance against pooling the same resources, more than hatred.

The RCP hosts find the word hate exaggerated but concede the rivalry is real. Donor calls, staff moves and endorsement signals show the two camps do not ignore each other. A phrase heard often on the podcast is crossover base, two brands sharing the same voters, the same money, the same volunteers. Newsom's I won't run if Harris does thus should be understood as a market-sharing statement rather than personal antipathy.

Why the 2028 shadow fell so early

The early withdrawal's effect on the 2028 primary is the most speculative but liveliest part of the RCP discussion. If Harris runs and Newsom sits out, the field opens to others such as Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer or Illinois' JB Pritzker. If Harris does not run, Newsom instantly emerges as the strongest California brand. The hate headline is therefore really a calendar bargain over who appears on stage when in the Democratic field.

The impeachment discussion intersects the 2028 calendar here. A Democratic House that opens aggressive investigations into Trump would force 2028 candidates to campaign in their shadow. RCP values Jeffries' cautious language for that reason: a fact-based track through the Judiciary committees helps protect a House majority and offers presidential candidates a responsible, not aggressive, frame.

The show's production language supports that strategic reading. The 8,915-word recording opens and closes with music around Walworth's moderation and the two veteran commentators' interplay. A call to subscribe and comment across YouTube and podcast apps points to a community strategy beyond Washington. RCP strengthens its effort to pull Washington out of Washington and tie it to voters' everyday economy and culture agendas through this format.

Past impeachment experiences help explain the caution. In Trump's first two impeachments the Senate stage stalled and public support stayed below the critical threshold; Democratic strategists fear replaying the same film would cost votes on inflation and housing fronts. That memory reduces Green's move to a symbolic pulse check while making Jeffries' committee emphasis more legible; when impeachment alone is on stage, voters stop hearing about the economy.

For the practical viewer, the watch list is clear: on one side the Clerk's vote record language and attendance detail, on the other the full texts of the Newsom-Harris statements in CNN, NBC and the LA Times. Putting the two side by side, as RCP does, turns Washington noise into numbers and calendar. In the coming weeks eyes will be on committee document requests first, then on early fundraising rounds outside Iowa and New Hampshire.

Stepping back, RCP's preview is more than one vote: 18 votes to table and 46 presents show how divided Democrats are on impeachment; Newsom's conditional withdrawal shows the same divide on the presidential plane. Both stories lead to the same question: how to satisfy the base and speak to the center at once. There is no answer yet, but Roll Call 298 in the House record and that brief statement to CNN have already staged the rehearsal for the coming months.