When two of the Democratic Party’s potential presidential nominees appear at the Munich Security Conference, it’s worth asking what each was trying to prove and whether they achieved their goals.
Indeed, both Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the trip to the high-profile international gathering – albeit each for different reasons and speaking to their individual audiences.
At the same time, the fact that both were auditioning for leadership positions was hardly concealed.
True, AOC has drawn considerably harsher critiques for her mistakes, but she also generated much more attention than Newsom did.
Nevertheless, it’s imperative to view their appearances through the context of their respective goals. In that context, both achieved what they set out to.
Quite simply, where Newsom was in Munich with an eye on the general election and seeking to appear presidential, AOC was there to boost her primary standing as a left-wing fighter.
This much was evident not only in terms of what each said, but who they said it to.
For his part, Newsom made an emphasis of meeting with world leaders, including from Ukraine, Germany, and Spain – cementing his stature as a go-to official for Europe – and reiterating his commitment to U.S. foreign relationships.
Moreover, in signing MOU’s with multiple countries in areas of sustainability and economic development, Newsom underscored his executive experience and comfort on the world stage.
In many ways, this was classic Newsom.
Looking past primary politics, the California governor stayed in his lane by projecting the appearance of a potential president.
He looked to soothe European concerns that America was permanently drifting from NATO, reminding foreign leaders that soon, Donald Trump will be a former president and America under a President Newsom would return to its historical role on the world stage.
On the other hand, AOC clearly sought to solidify herself as a leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party, including making clear distinctions between herself and other Democrats.
Specifically – and in a thinly veiled shot at Newsom – AOC came out in favor of wealth taxes, such as the one being debated in California and which Newsom has publicly opposed.
Likewise, on other issues such as U.S. support for Israel and Taiwan, although AOC’s answers have come under fire, the criticism is misguided. Despite her dithering on the issue, eventually she aligned herself with traditional U.S. policy vis-à-vis Taiwan.
The Congresswoman has never been considered a foreign policy expert, thus, her many factual errors are far less important than the display of a left-wing fighter.
Also, ordinary voters are unlikely to parse her specific words with the same intensity of the media, which has already labeled her appearance a failure, even more so since her soundbites calling for higher taxes on the ultra-rich came through, and that was the marker she intended to lay down.
To that end, who Newsom and AOC focused their remarks on is telling.
Throughout the conference and in the days after, Newsom almost entirely aimed his words at President Trump.
In a press release after, the governor’s office mentioned Trump seven times, hammering the president for “abandoning America’s long-standing allies.”
Conversely, in a follow up interview with the New York Times, AOC emphasized that the point of her appearance was to “warn that wealth world leaders must better provide for their working classes” lest more countries “slide towards authoritarianism.”
Put another way, if Newsom was looking to compare himself with Trump, AOC was looking to assume command of the ascendant progressive wing with a broad, global message warning about the importance of the working class and dangers of far-right policies.
With that in mind, the data suggests AOC may have been more aligned with the direction of the Democratic Party than Newsom, even if the latter is more viable in a national election.
Polling conducted by The New Republic shows that support for raising taxes on the wealthy is near-universal (93% support) among Democrats.
Further, an overwhelming majority (71%) believe “the system is rigged against people like me” – a belief AOC’s focus on working class politics speaks directly to.
However, it is also critical to note that in terms of the larger field of Democrats’ 2028 nominees, AOC is far behind Newsom and Harris. The RealClearPolitics polling average has AOC at nearly 8%, trailing Harris (31%) and Newsom (22%).
Other individual polls, such as this from Echelon Insights have Newsom (27%) ahead of Harris (21%), but at 9% AOC is still far behind both leading candidates.
And yet, it is equally important to understand that by seeking to appeal to the growing number of Democrats who want a fighter for far-left policies, AOC’s Munich appearance likely solidified her as progressives’ leader.
Given that Newsom and AOC will first have to run the primary gauntlet – increasingly dominated by progressives – if AOC can cement her position among the far-left, she may be a formidable candidate.
Ultimately, any honest assessment of Newsom’s and AOC’s Munich appearances needs to account for the vastly different goals both had.
By their own individual metrics, both can say they were successful, even if Newsom appeared more competent and polished.
Whether one – or both – can translate their respective successes into sustained momentum remains to be seen, but neither should be upset.
Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.
