People — especially politicians — don’t normally surrender power without a fight, particularly soon after acquiring it. And the Senate is the peak of legislative power in America.

But sometimes the wise move is to voluntarily relinquish power. So kudos to Butler, 44, a career labor leader and Democratic activist.

By resisting the temptation to seek a full six-year Senate term — the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat — Butler did herself, the Democratic Party and California citizens a big favor.

This is what I mean:

Besides requiring immense time and energy, successful political campaigning can get nasty and personal. Butler now can escape that trauma.

Also, California’s Democratic Party will avoid unnecessary bloodletting. And the party will save money.

Campaign donations — from individuals, unions and other interests — can now help fund competitive contests where congressional control is at stake, rather than going to Butler in a race virtually certain to be won by some Democrat anyway.

Californians will benefit by being represented in Washington by a full-time senator — instead of, in essence, a part-timer who is focused on hitting up campaign donors and running in a very competitive contest on the other side of the continent where she’s unknown outside political circles. She can concentrate her attention on the job Gov. Gavin Newsom gave her: filling in temporarily for Feinstein.

Butler was advised by political consultants she could win a full term. And she believed them, according to one person close to her who asked for anonymity.

She had several political advantages, Butler was told. They included:

The current candidate crop isn’t setting the world on fire. Many voters are undecided. There’s room for another Democratic contender.

She’d have the benefit of incumbency. That includes being listed on the ballot as “senator,” having the ability to talk about Senate accomplishments and the opportunity to attract campaign money from interests based on her Senate power.

As a former president of the powerful 700,000-member Service Employees International Union in California, she has a strong labor base, which is especially important in competing against other Democrats.

Many people are sour on career politicians. Among Democratic and independent voters, she’d stand out from other candidates as a fresh new face and a Black lesbian, the first LGBTQ+ senator from California.

Did Butler really think she could win? “Yes,” the insider told me. “If she were able to put the resources together and get her message out, it was a winning formula.”

Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s career-long strategist who isn’t involved in the race, agrees that Butler “could have been a player. She’d have had a shot.” Even though she has never run for an elective office.

Why? Because none of the major Democratic candidates — Reps. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland — have waged a statewide campaign in California. Their election contests have all been within small-sized districts.

“Nobody knows any of these people very well,” Carrick says. “Right now, the race is wide open — with or without Laphonza in it.

“She’s a very good speaker. She’s got charisma. She’s articulate and smart. Very capable.”

“She would have had to scramble to get the money quickly,” he adds. “But she could have competed in that.”

Perhaps $25 million to $30 million would have needed to be raised by Butler in the four months before the March 5 California primary. That’s not much time.

Another veteran consultant who has managed statewide campaigns in California was skeptical that Butler could have won.

“I think she would have had a very hard time even getting into the [top-two November] runoff with only four months to assemble a campaign, raise millions of dollars and then convince voters that someone they’ve never heard of is the best choice for senator,” says this strategist, who’s not involved in the campaign and asked for anonymity.

But it’s all moot.

“Knowing you can win a campaign doesn’t always mean you should run a campaign,” Butler said in her statement bowing out.

The senator didn’t want to elaborate. But the insider told me she felt that running for the first time in a huge state “would be like having a second full-time job. And if she was going to accomplish anything in the Senate, she needed to get up to speed and focus on that.”

There also were family considerations. Butler has a 9-year-old daughter. If she served in the Senate for the next seven years, she couldn’t be a full-time parent.

Additionally, she was already being attacked for her past private consulting for Uber and Airbnb, two labor adversaries. Who needs that?

There was immediate speculation that Butler could run for governor in 2026. I’m not buying it. That’s just impractical. She’d need to make a very big splash during her one year as a senator.

Butler made the right decision for resuming her non-politician career.

She won’t be ticking off the current Democratic candidates, one of whom will be California’s next senator. She won’t become a political target, possibly tarnishing her stellar image. She’ll still burnish her already impressive resume with the title “senator,” an invaluable selling point in future job pitches. She’ll probably make millions without having made enemies.

In her statement, Butler said she had 383 days left as a senator. She added: “Muhammad Ali once said, ‘Don’t count the days, make the days count.’ I intend to do just that.”

For many, that may sound like political claptrap. From here, it sounds legit and refreshing.