As a registered voter in California, I’ve been watching the slowly developing 2026 gubernatorial race in which no Democrat seems to be breaking out of the bipartisan pack. I wrote an early assessment for New York:
The last three governors of California were all legendary, larger-than-life political figures. Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003–’11) was a huge Hollywood and pop-culture celebrity before he entered politics in a recall election that ejected his predecessor Gray Davis. He remains the last Republican to be elected as governor or U.S. senator in the Golden State. Jerry Brown (2011-2019) served in his second two-term gubernatorial stretch, having first been elected to the office way back in 1974 (he also ran for president three times). And the current and outgoing California governor, Gavin Newsom (2019-present), was San Francisco mayor and two-term lieutenant governor before stepping up to the top job in Sacramento. He, too, has dominated California politics in a big way.
The contest to choose the 41st governor of California currently has ten candidates — eight Democrats and two Republicans — and not that many voters could identify them in a line-up. Two Democratic politicians who did have some name ID and who might have dominated the field have given the race a pass. That would be former U.S. senator, vice president, and presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who may instead run for president again in 2028 (very likely against Newsom); and her successor in the Senate, Alex Padilla, who gained a lot of attention when he was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed by Secret Service agents for trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question at a press conference.
With those big fish out of the tank, the remaining field is composed of candidates who are far from unknown, but are still small fry, relatively speaking. A well-known former Democratic member of the U.S. House, Katie Porter (who ran for the Senate in 2024) and current House member Eric Swalwell (who very briefly ran for president in 2020), are running. One current Democratic statewide office-holder, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, is making a bid. So is former state comptroller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden administration HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and former state assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. The most recent Democrat to enter the race was hedge fund billionaire and liberal activist Tom Steyer (who ran a presidential campaign briefly more successful than Swalwell’s in 2020).
Alongside these eight Democrats are two Republicans: Fox News gabber and former British Tory political operative Steve Hilton, and current Riverside County (east of L.A.) sheriff Chad Bianco.
Polls consistently show these ten candidates struggling to break out of the pack. Early on, Porter, building on name ID from her unsuccessful 2024 Senate race, had some buzz, but she damaged herself by pitching a temper tantrum during a media interview that wasn’t going her way. Since then it’s become a sluggish race between snails. The latest public poll, from Emerson, released in early December, shows Bianco at 13 percent, Hilton and Swalwell at 12 percent, Porter at 11 percent, Villaraigosa at 5 percent, and Steyer and Becerra at 4 percent. The remaining candidates combine for 7 percent, and there’s an impressive 31 percent who are undecided or don’t know who these people are. Everyone but Porter has name ID under 50 percent, and hers isn’t all that positive. You may think that’s because it’s so very early in the contest, but in fact, the primary is on June 2, just over six months away.
That primary, by the way, is part of California’s non-partisan top two system in which the first- and second-place finishers, regardless of party, proceed to the general election. And the early polling has created a bit of a freak-out among Democrats bewailing their candidates’ lack of star power, as Politico noted:
“California Democrats have a math problem: They’ve added so many candidates in the race to succeed Gavin Newsom that two Republicans could end up winning the state’s quirky ‘jungle primary,’ shutting the Democrats out.
“A Democratic wipeout is still unlikely. But the prospect of a humiliating pile-up, with no clear powerbroker to act as traffic cop, has put the state’s political class increasingly on edge with each new entrant into the field.”
Even though the race should intensify considerably as we get deeper into 2026, the candidate filing deadline isn’t until March. So the power vacuum in the gubernatorial field could yet attract a late entry from some celebrity (Hollywood is chock full of them) or insanely rich self-funder (one such bag of money, Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso, could run for governor if he doesn’t run again for L.A. mayor). Or more Lilliputs could join the race hoping that lightning strikes (e.g., state Attorney General Rob Bonta).
If the field remains as it is, keep an eye on Steyer, whose vast wealth could buy him the name ID he needs. Ideological divisions and factional alignments could also be key. Thurmond is touting his support for a single-payer health care system and has the endorsement by California’s powerful teachers unions. Villaraigosa (who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018) has a well-worn reputation as a Democratic “moderate.” Porter has scars from her battles with the crypto industry, which savaged her with negative ads in 2024, while Calderon has become a crypto bro ally. Becerra can run on his legal battles with the first Trump administration (when he served as California attorney general) and Swalwell has been trading insults with Trump for years. Meanwhile the two Republicans in the race can be expected to compete for a Trump endorsement (Hilton is a long-time Trump backer on Fox News, while Bianco is a former Oath Keeper).
Ethnic and geographical rivalries could matter too. Becerra, Calderon, and Villaraigosa are Latino; Yee is Asian-American; Thurmond is Black. Calderon, Porter, and Villaraigosa are from the greater Los Angeles area; Steyer, Swallwell, Thurmond, and Yee are from the San Francisco Bay area; and Becerra is from Sacramento. Schwarzenegger was the last California governor from Southern California, but he also represented the last gasp of truly moderate Republicanism.
While the field could shrink or expand even more before the filing deadline, the next governor of California probably won’t enter office with anything like the street cred and national prominence of the other 21st century chief executives, who often acted as though the state is an independent principality with its own foreign and domestic policies. Newsom will also leave some chronic fiscal problems, a perpetually fractious legislature, all sorts of natural resources and environmental challenges, and a housing “affordability” crisis that has spurred a national debate over a so-called “abundance” agenda prioritizing regulatory streamlining to speed up housing and other construction. It’s a lot, but whoever wins will become a lot more famous, fast.
Regarding Bush (and Gov. Romney, and other socially backward types of their ilk) on gay marriage: It is not clear to me that they will not be able to use it as a wedge issue. But I believe it should be possible for our candidate to argue forcefully that it is un-American to decry judges for doing the terrificly important job that the Founders gave them: defending the rights of a minority of citizens, especially when those citizens are widely disliked. When Bush and his allies lament that the “will of the people” has been usurped by activist judges, they really are talking about the mob mentality of the bullying majority, which Madison & Co. most reasonably feared.
“And as we’ve seen in the last few weeks, people don’t really start thinking about an election until very late. He could tank, as his father did when people started thinking seriously about whether they wanted to see him on TV for another 4 years.”
Ron Thompson, I certainly hope you’re right. The continuously mounting evidence of this administration’s utter dishonesty and incompetence makes it rather discouraging that Bush’s approval rating is still anywhere near 50%.
I am of the belief that Karl Rove still has cards to play.
But in order to keep Rove off his game, Dems have to keep Bush playing defense. Talk lost tax revenue as well as defecit. Index cuts to popular and essential programs in terms of dollars gained by people who make over $2 million per year. Ask the big question, “Should a president deceive you in order to do something you agree with? Graphically demonstrate (not simply pie charts, etc) how long it would take to make up the the slack between the jobs Bush promised and the jobs he’s created. There’s more, but I have to get back to work….
The problem with Kerry is the same as it was for Gore, he seems completely ungenuine (ingenuine?). I believe that he, like Gore, is a very well qualified and principled individual, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but he is going to turn off my mother-in-law just like Gore. He just can’t win because Bush seems genuine (ironies of ironies).
I’m still for Clark. The question “Who can beat Bush?” is the right question. I don’t think the answer is Kerry because Kerry says he won’t make an issue of the war. Of course he might be rethinking that if the polls show that it’s safe to speak up, but assuming he sticks to his original agenda, he won’t talk about the war. and that is not only cowardly but also stupid.
Bush will make an issue of the war. He has to. He has no othe issue. That means like it or not the Democrats have to run against the war. Humphrey tried to ignore the biggest moral issue of his day when he ran aginst Nixon in 1968. He concentrated on domestic issues because the Democratic party leaders then, as now, lacked the balls to take a moral stand or provide leadership in opposition to a war. Humphrey lost.
Dean understands that leaders create issues. /they speak out over and over until they are heard. They don’t check the polls to find out what they think. The problem is that Dean isn’t the right messenger to tell the American people that Bush led them into an unnecessary war and killed over 500 citizens for a megalomaniacal fantasy. Kerry is in a better position to attack but he lacks the nerve. He won’t publicize Bush’s lies until the polls tell him it’s safe. That leaves Clark.
Clark is the person who has the courage to take an stand and the stature and experience to back it up. He is the one that can tell Americans that they got conned and misled. His candidacy is that best thing that has happened to the Democrats in years.
He’s also the best choice for another reason. He’s a Southerner and he has the Southerner’s ability to talk about values, religion, family etc. and sound sincere(because he is sincere). Those issues and that sincere demeanor matter to Independent voters. It may be that Ruy is right and we don’t need the Southern states to win. However we do need the Independent voters and they are more likey to vote for a Southerner regardless of where they reside. Look at the track record. Southern Democrats have won far more often than Northerners. It’s a matter of style. They have a broader appeal in marginal states.
To bad he won’t get the nomination.
A similar thing happened in the President’s last big speech, on September 7th. He did a Sunday night address to the nation on Iraq, hurriedly announced on Friday afternoon, and the percentage of approval for his handling of Iraq after the speech was worse than before. So that’s twice in a row he’s left his audience unimpressed.
The country willed itself to think well of him after 9/11. And as we’ve seen in the last few weeks, people don’t really start thinking about an election until very late. He could tank, as his father did when people started thinking seriously about whether they wanted to see him on TV for another 4 years.
i think it’s great that Bush’s SOTU address was properly interpreted, and it HURT him accordingly. after all, he focused more on steroids than health care.