California’s Governor’s Race Needs a Substantive Debate and Real Leadership. So far we’re waiting for both.
As the race enters the last month before voting, many California voters remain undecided
I know a lot of California voters who haven’t a clue who they’ll vote for in this November’s gubernatorial election. Normally, by now, I would have a favorite and I’m still looking at all options.
The state is choosing the leader of the world’s fourth largest economy, in a race that could, if Democrats don’t consolidate, end with a Republican representing a majority Democratic state in Sacramento.
It’s a crowded race to say the least. The field of candidates stretches three pages on the Secretary of State’s certified list, though few candidates are truly viable.
Because there are so many Democrats and only 2 prominent Republicans, some polls show the two finalists from the June 2 jungle primary could both be Republicans. That would leave California voters in November with no Democrat on the ballot for the top slot at all.
One would think then there would be reason for organized, robust, fair debates to help voters consolidate around choices. What we got last week was a hasty cancellation of a USC hosted debate and more questions than answers.
A Field That Won’t Consolidate
Not long after the California Democratic Party suggested lower-polling candidates drop out to consolidate the field, I attended a party with well-connected political consultants and staffers.
I spoke with various folks working for campaigns, none on the record. All were enthusiastic about their candidates. When I raised the consolidation question, every answer was essentially the same: Won’t be us dropping out.
The irony is that the most qualified candidate — one who had already earned endorsements and would have made history as California’s first female governor — was among the first to leave the race. Eleni Kounalakis served as Lt. Governor under Gavin Newsom, as President Obama’s Ambassador to Hungary, and built a business her immigrant father moved to California to grow.
I’ve met her. I like her. I still don’t know why she dropped out. Toni Atkins, another high quality female candidate, dropped out early as well.
Kamala Harris, who likely would have won had she entered, declined to run. Senator Alex Padilla bowed out as well.
California is a uniquely powerful state, which is why it’s so surprising so many bowed out to run it.
I tried to go back and forth with Congressman Ro Khanna, who I admire, on X, encouraging him to go for the job. He declined publicly (and politely), saying he was focused on making a difference at the federal level, and subsequently endorsed Tom Steyer.
What remains is a field still too crowded to be coherent.
Congressman Eric Swalwell, a former prosecutor who served on Trump’s impeachment team, leads in several recent polls and is running on a platform of resisting the Trump administration. He’s the one the Polymarket is betting on though I’m not so sure I would make that bet quite yet. Swalwell is in a legal standoff with the FBI over the potential release of decade-old files from the Christine ‘Fang Fang’ investigation, a suspected Chinese spy who reportedly honey-trapped the Congressman and other US officials.
Katie Porter, despite her dropping poll numbers, remains in the race with a very similar anti-Trump message. She famously had her white boards in Congress, and certainly has her confidence in the race.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire activist, is running on a working-class platform, promising to tax fellow billionaires, build new housing, and and takes firm positions on issues ranging from youth access to social media to supporting single-payer health care and AI regulation. He’s got momentum and endorsements.
One recent poll actually had Tom Steyer and Republican Steve Hilton as the top two finishers. Hilton, a former Fox News host, is an immigrant from Britain and former adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron. Both Steyer and Hilton are said to have the highest net worth. Steyer, highest by a long shot, grew his wealth through the management of a hedge fund while Hilton grew his wealth in political technology, business, and most notably his wife’s prominent tech career.
What would it say about California if the top two candidates happen to hold the top two incomes in the race? Maybe a lot, but probably not the message it wants to send to the world.
The Debate That Wasn’t
The USC debate cancellation was swift. The controversy: their methodology for determining who made the debate stage appeared to weigh heavily in favor of white candidates over candidates of color.
Most notably San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a recent newcomer polling in the single digits, was invited because an advantage was built in for candidates who entered the race late. Some of his advisors have longtime USC ties.
Mahan made the cut over Xavier Becerra, who served as California’s Attorney General and then as Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also made it over Betty Yee, the former State Controller and the only remaining woman of color, who has made fiscal accountability key to her campaign. And Tony Thurmond, the current schools superintendent. And Antonio Villaraigosa, the former LA Mayor who came in third when he ran against Newsom in 2018 and who many serious Democrats in this state still admire.
Many were saying they deserved a chance to debate, especially this early. Despite lobbying, they wouldn’t get the chance. The debate was cancelled, and there was some irony.
On Sunday, Swalwell posted on X suggesting USC allow more candidates into its debate, writing that “debates are a fundamental part of our democratic process.” That same weekend, he declined an invitation to a forum at Fresno State on April 1, hosted by the Maddy Institute and 30 agricultural organizations, citing a scheduling conflict.
Steyer also cited a scheduling conflict with the April 1 event, though he had at the last minute tried to organize a forum in LA to replace the USC debate. Unfortunately the candidates who were lobbying to join the USC debate cited scheduling conflicts in why they couldn’t join Steyer. So many scheduling conflicts.
A Nexstar-hosted televised debate is scheduled for April 22, airing statewide across six California markets — Nexstar being the company that spent months courting the Trump administration to win approval for a $6.2 billion merger, a deal California’s own attorney general is now suing to block. Four of the five invited candidates have confirmed (Steyer, Swalwell, Hilton and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco). The exception is Katie Porter.
Who Steps Up?
What’s particularly frustrating for California voters is that we live in a low-information state when it comes to our own elections. I can talk to many otherwise well-informed people and they don’t know who is running, what they stand for and what differentiates them.
There is limited organized coverage of this many candidates and their actual policies. (And we’ve seen this before in early presidential primaries, when dozens of candidates flood the field.) On top of that, the organizations that have scheduled debates have proactively compromised at the national level with the Trump administration to win recent approvals.
One of the organizations focusing on the race most closely has been CBS News California Investigates, the reporting initiative at what is now Paramount Skydance’s owned-and-operated station in Sacramento. They also have a scheduled debate on April 28 with Pomona College in what could be the most consequential debate of the cycle, just five days before ballots go out.
While it’s CBS local, their parent company settled a Trump lawsuit for $16 million to win federal merger approval and has certainly been under scrutiny for journalistic integrity. The candidate list for that debate has not yet been finalized.
Julie Watts, a veteran CBS California journalist and CBS News California Investigates correspondent, will be involved in the debate. It was Watts who sat down with Katie Porter and asked what she’d say to the 40 percent of California voters who voted for Trump. Porter shot back, “How would I need them in order to win?”
Porter went on to say she expected to win all non-Trump voters if she faced a Republican, and that she didn’t intend to face a Democrat at all (If she got in the final two she might get her chance). When Watts pressed her, Porter said the interview was getting unnecessarily argumentative and announced she was calling it. The clip went viral, Porter’s poll numbers fell, and the race reshuffled. That is what serious journalism and organized debate can do.
Governor Newsom has not endorsed. No other major institution has stepped up to fill the debate vacuum.
National Democrats should pay heed, too. What kind of message would it send if a state so deeply associated with opposition to President Trump doesn’t have a Democrat on the November ballot?
Mail-in voting begins May 4.
That is five weeks away. The voters of this state, and the future of its governance, deserve better than what we’ve seen so far. The question is whether anyone in a position to lead is going to actually do it in the limited time we have left. One would hope in this great Golden State that some might.