CA 120: Is Newsom’s podcast….working?

If we have learned anything over the past several years, it’s that controversy brings eyeballs.  And that may have been the plan all along with the This is Gavin Newsom podcast.

By leading with conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, Newsom created a controversy which got exponentially greater after following up with a sit-down with the ideological architect of Trumpism, Steve Bannon. The attention allowed Newsom to gain large numbers of subscribers and become the most talked about potential 2028 challenger for weeks, and he probably brought more viewers to his interview with Governor Tim Walz and latest with Ezra Klein than if he had started with these more predictable left-friendly guests.

And a review of voter responses to the Walz podcast may signal some increased comfort among voters with this Newsom strategy of talking to the other side, at least in principle.

As a follow up to the previous two polls on the Newsom podcast – the first simply polling response to the podcast launch, and the second diving into key segments of the Kirk episode – we have now come back and polled sections of the Walz podcast and found some interesting takeaways from voters.

This survey reached 1,200 voters and was conducted from March 18^th – 27^th. As with the prior survey, we taken all the open-ended comments left by voters and put them in a document which is available to download here. (Warning – as with the last survey, these comments are raw and unedited, often vulgar.)

To begin the survey we asked the same initial questions as we have in the earlier polls. The number of people who have heard of the Newsom podcast has ticked up from around 54% after the Kirk podcast to over 60% now. When asked if they believe elected officials should be doing podcasts, the numbers over all three surveys haven’t budged, with 51% of voters saying they prefer having politicians go to social media and podcasts rather than relying on traditional media.

We also asked if voters are planning to listen to the Newsom podcasts and in each survey somewhere between 25-30% of voters expressed some likelihood that they would listen to the podcast. In the most recent poll the number of voters who said they had already listened to it crept up to just 4%.

This low rate of consumption among voters in the poll does contrast with the clear high interest in the podcast. We can’t see the number of downloads, but we can see that it is currently at 52^nd in the Spotify Ranking and 10^th among news podcasts. We can also get a sense of scale by looking at YouTube where he has more than a million views, over 800,000 for his initial Charlie Kirk interview, 300,000 for Steve Bannon, and 100,000 for Governor Tim Walz.

Specifically for this podcast we wanted to test how voters were responding to the criticism of Newsom for having Bannon and Kirk on his podcasts, and voters largely weren’t buying it.

Governor Newsom has been criticized for having conservative guests like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his show. Do you believe he should be inviting guests like these?

The following provides analysis of the open-ended responses after voters watched three different segments of the podcast: When Newsom and Walz discuss the Democratic Party’s low popularity, When Walz pushed back on Newsom’s engagement with conservative figures like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, and then at the end of the podcast when they discuss the concept of a “big tent” for Democrats.

Clip #1 – The Democratic Party’s Popularity Crisis

To start the podcast, Newsom talks with Walz about the Democratic Party’s historically low popularity and what they should be doing. Newsom says “Look, we’re in the tank” and cites the recent polling that only 27% of voters say they are happy with the Democratic party. Walz discusses the need to communicate with voters, and get things done that have an impact in their lives.

Overall, sentiment analysis on the open-ended comments on this first clip was 45% negative, 39% positive and 15% neutral.

Democrats largely welcome the introspective dialogue, seeing it as a necessary acknowledgment of the party’s struggles, though many criticize its lack of concrete solutions. Republicans overwhelmingly dismiss the conversation as irrelevant, hypocritical, or a sign of weakness, often attacking Newsom and Walz personally. Non-Partisan/Other voters show a mix of cautious optimism and skepticism, appreciating the focus on labor and working-class issues but questioning the party’s ability to act effectively. Across all groups, a central tension emerges between the desire for meaningful change and frustration with perceived inaction or misalignment with voter priorities.

Positive comments from Democrats center on appreciation for the candid discussion, viewing it as a vital step toward addressing the party’s declining popularity. They value the focus on working-class issues and not reflexive partisanship. For example, a Democratic voter stated, “I love that they are being introspective and talking about what people’s concerns are and not just bashing the other side. This is no time for slogans and sound bites. We have real issues out here.” Another praised Walz’s emphasis on labor, saying, “Walz hits the nail on the head where it’s the concerns of working people that should be where Democrats should start.” Other comments reflect a hunger for Democrats to figure out a way to win, not to simply focus on purity-test politics, with statements like “Whatever it takes to reach the 30% of the population who did NOT vote is very important.”

Negative comments from Democrats criticizes a lack of substance and actionable plans. Some Democrats feel the discussion is too vague, with one stating, “They really aren’t saying what they are going to do about it or what they want us to do. I would like more clarity about real-life steps.” Others express frustration with perceived inaction, as seen in “Stop talking about it, DO SOMETHING!” Distrust in Newsom also emerges, with one Democrat calling him “a corporate rat.”

Few Republicans offer praise, but those who do value self-reflection. One noted, “It is necessary for both parties to constantly evaluate their positions on issues and get honest feedback,” suggesting a bipartisan nod to introspection. Another saw strategic weakness, stating, “They have lost connection with their support base, which assures a win for Trump.”

Most Republicans dismiss the discussion as irrelevant or deceitful, often with visceral attacks. Comments like “They’re both full of s$%! Pure propaganda” and “Gavin is a snake liar” reflect deep mistrust. Policy critiques focus on perceived elitism and anti-Americanism, with one saying, “It’s because of the Democratic policies that has led to the middle class to suffer.” The tone from these Republicans is overwhelmingly hostile, viewing the podcast as pandering or a sign of desperation.

Nonpartisan voters agree on some policies, like the labor focus in this clip, and Newsom’s openness. One said, “I agree. Labor is what helped built this country” while another noted, “I see Gavin Newsom in a much more positive light in the fact that he is willing to try and understand people he disagrees with.” These responses suggest potential for Newsom to recapture some independents with this kind of dialogue.

Criticism mirrors Democratic concerns about substance, with comments like “Talk is cheap. Trump offers the illusion of action” and “They didn’t say anything very interesting.” Some see the party as too progressive, as in “The Democrats lost the big tent because they pandered to the progressives.”

Question 2: Engaging with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon

In the second segment, Newsom talks about why he had Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast to understand them, and why they are connecting to voters, especially young men. He wants to understand what their motivations are and what they are actually doing. Walz pushes back saying that he wouldn’t do a show with Kirk or Bannon, saying that he thinks he can “kick their asses” and that he wants to push them all back under a rock. He asks “don’t you think that’s all sexism and misogyny?” Newsom responds “not everyone who disagrees with us is a misogynist.”

Sentiment analysis on the open ended comments on this second clip were 44% negative, 32% positive and 23% neutral.

Many voters praised Newsom’s effort to engage with opposing viewpoints, seeing it as a strategic move to comprehend conservative influence and reduce polarization. However, others criticized the decision, arguing that it amplifies harmful rhetoric and betrays progressive values. Republicans predominantly rejected the discussion, often viewing it as insincere or irrelevant, though a minority appreciated Newsom’s openness to understanding differing perspectives. Non-partisan respondents were similarly mixed, with some commending Newsom’s pragmatic approach and others dismissing it as pandering or ineffective in addressing broader voter concerns.

Democrats who gave positive comments supported Newsom’s decision, viewing it as a thoughtful attempt to understand why conservative figures resonate with voters, particularly young men, and to bridge ideological divides. They appreciated the civil exchange and saw it as a way to counter misinformation or find common ground. Several comments included the term “agree” including “Agree with Newsom” and “I agree with Gavin about interviewing people with different views. It’s important to have input from more than one source so you can see other viewpoints and opinions.”

Another set of responses seemed to appreciate the discussion and the Walz counter-argument, such as “I like the push-back from Walz that helps Newsom more clearly articulate the message he’s trying to send. I agree with them both and find Newsom persuasive in his argument that finding common ground is the key to ending polarization.”

While there was more positive feedback from Democrats to this conversation than the one with Kirk, a significant portion strongly opposed the approach, arguing that platforming Kirk and Bannon legitimizes their controversial views, spreads misinformation, or panders to an irredeemable audience. Many aligned with Tim Walz’s criticism, feeling Newsom failed to challenge harmful ideologies. Several comments mirrored the comment: “Giving conservatives like Charlie Kirk a platform in Democratic spaces for the purpose of ‘understanding them’ is feeding the echo chamber of bias and propaganda.”

In a way, both Walz and Newsom seemed to get a win out of this part of the conversation, at least among Democrats, with several comments like “I agree with both of them”, “They can both be correct”, “I get the thought process at play, and don’t disagree with Newsome (sic),” and “I completely understand where Tim Walz is coming from but I think Gavin Newsom has the right idea that we must listen and try to break through to the MAGA voters.”

A small number of Republicans appreciated Newsom’s willingness to engage with conservative figures, viewing it as a rare sign of openness or a strategic move to understand their base. They often contrasted this favorably with Walz’s more dismissive stance. Comments like “I agree with Newsom’s statement. Just because someone is wrong it doesn’t make them evil,” and “Newsom makes a fair point of understanding the other side.”

Of course, even when espousing a path of better understanding Republicans, the strain of anti-Newsom and negative partisanship meant that most Republicans weren’t buying it. The majority of Republicans dismissed the segment, often with strong disdain for both Newsom and Walz. They saw it as political theater, criticized the participants as out of touch, or rejected it outright due to distrust of Democrats, with comments like “I don’t really care what they think.” “All democrats need to go away and crawl under the rocks they came from.”

After receiving open-ended comments, we asked voters if they prefer Newsom’s approach to dealing with Kirk and Bannon over Walz’ more combative approach. This is led by Republicans at 81%, but even among independents they strongly support this approach by a more than 30-point margin, while Democrats prefer the fight by an 18-point margin.

In this clip Newsom is arguing it is important to understand people they oppose, like Kirk and Bannon, while Walz is saying that it is more important for Democrats to fight and discredit them. Which do you think is more important?”

What was interesting in the tone of the comments, and what could be the biggest takeaway, was that Democrats seemed to be more open to the idea of talking with those opposing voices, when talking about it with another Democrat. It is as if there is an increased openness to it in concept, but when they see it actually happening, as they did with the Kirk podcast, they recoil.

This could argue for a kind of 90%/10% strategy for the Governor going forward with this podcast – focusing 90% of the time on using his platform to uplift more Democratic and progressive voices, while continuing to hammer on his appeal for cross-party discussions, but then limiting these actual cross-party discussions to few and far-between the other 10% of the time.

Question 3: The Need for a “Big Tent”

In our final clip, we had respondents view the closing segment of the podcast where Governor Gavin Newsom and Tim Walz discuss the need for Democrats to adopt a “big tent” strategy to broaden its appeal, particularly to workers and the middle class.

Sentiment analysis on the open-ended comments on this second clip were 50% negative, 18% positive and 30% neutral, making this section the most negatively received of the three.

Democrats showed the strongest support, with many praising the inclusivity and focus on workers as a vital step to regain voter trust, though some criticized it as vague or doubted the party’s ability to follow through. Republicans were largely dismissive, often viewing the discussion as empty rhetoric or out of touch with their priorities, with only a handful acknowledging its strategic merit. Non-partisan respondents offered a mixed response, with some appreciating the intent to unite diverse groups, while others questioned its practicality or saw it as pandering without substance.

Democrats predominantly endorsed the “big tent” concept, viewing it as a strategic necessity to unify diverse groups and refocus on working-class issues. Many appreciated the emphasis on labor and saw it as a way to counter Republican gains, often praising Newsom and Walz for addressing core party values.

Some Democratic voter responses were praising of the effort, while others still wanted a bit more “A very important point” and “Agree with the big tent concept,” were contrasted with another voter stating “Walz is right, they need to ruffle feathers and beat the republicans at their own game.”

Other Democrats expressed frustration, calling the discussion empty or criticizing the Party’s disconnect from its base. Others worried that a “big tent” might compromise progressive values or felt the party lacked the leadership to enact it.  It was called “Empty talk” and “Too little, too late” and then other voters disputed the strategy altogether, with one stating “This is the same old boomer s— that killed this f—ing country.” While others supported the concept while questioning the legitimacy of the strategy, “Sounds good in theory, but 2025 is very different than the mid-20th century” and “A big tent is fine but in politics it is folly to give every extreme position equal standing.”

A small minority of Republicans supported the “big tent” idea, seeing it as a logical approach to expand influence or address workers’ needs, though such views were rare and tempered by broader party skepticism. In the more negative comments, we saw full rejection of the discussion, often with disdain, labeling it as insincere, irrelevant, or a sign of Democratic weakness. Criticism frequently targeted Newsom and Walz personally or dismissed the focus on unions and inclusivity as misaligned with their values, such as “BS,” “Gavin and Walz are the most irrelevant individuals” and “They are uninterested in bettering the well-being of the American citizen.”

A few Republicans offered measured responses, recognizing the concept’s potential but doubting its execution or relevance to their concerns, often emphasizing taxpayer priorities over broad inclusivity and suggesting that the approaches they were expressing would ultimately fail, “This tent they speak of and its associated policies sound nice… but is terrible in the long-term.”

Many non-partisan respondents welcomed the “big tent” approach, valuing its inclusivity and potential to bridge divides. They often saw it as a pragmatic move to re-engage voters, with some expressing newfound respect for Newsom’s outreach efforts. There were several statements supportive of Newsom among independents, such as “Agree with Gavin’s approach” and I see Gavin Newsom in a much more positive light” while other independents, particularly those who supported Trump respond much more like Republicans with statement like “They are both irrelevant and they need to sit down and shut up” and “Word salad nonsense.”

The open-ended responses to this final question underscore a key challenge for Democrats: while the “big tent” idea garners significant backing from their base and some independents, overcoming skepticism and outright rejection – especially from voters who didn’t support Kamala Harris in 2024 – will require more than words.

After the first podcast with Kirk, we asked voters if what they saw improved or harmed their impressions of the governor.  After watching the Kirk interview, only 13% of voters said they had an improved perception, while 26% said it harmed their impression and 58% said it made no difference.

Asking this same question after voters viewed the Walz podcast gives a significantly better set of numbers for the Governor, with a doubling of his “improves perception” number up to 27% and a drop in the “harms” perception number by 6-points.

Do these snippets of the recent “This is Gavin Newsom” podcast improve or harm your perception of the California Governor?

This is effectively a 20-point improvement (+14 on “improves” and -6 on “harms”).

After the Kirk podcast we also asked voters if they felt like the inclusion of conservatives on his podcast made them more likely to see him as a moderate, and 24% of voters said that it made them think of Newsom as being more moderate, with 17% saying it made them less likely to see him as moderate, and 59% said it made no difference. After this podcast, the number improved for Newsom, with 30% saying that it made them more likely to see him as a moderate versus 15% not, for a net improvement of 8 points.

Do these snippets of his podcast, or the fact that he is doing a podcast with the hopes of hearing from more conservative voices, make you more or less likely to see him as being more moderate?

While these two questions show better signs for Newsom, we still see overall favorable numbers that are below his February levels.  Before these two surveys using clips of his podcast, we had Newsom net favorable at +4 points (52% Favorable, 48% Unfavorable). After the Kirk podcast, these had flipped to 47-53, a net favorability of -6.

After the Walz podcast we saw a small shift, with Newsom at 48-51, for a -3 net favorability.  Not as bad as after the Kirk interview, but essentially in the same range, and well within the margin of error.

In our next survey we will have a favorable/unfavorable battery which will come without having respondents watching several minutes of Newsom clips, which could significantly change the way that they respond to this question. We will also continue to track the progress of this podcast and could find ourselves again doing a survey of specific clips if necessary.