Politics
Commentary: Who won and who lost in Thursday night’s California gubernatorial debate? Our columnists weigh in
For the sixth and final time before votes are counted, the leading contenders for California governor gathered Thursday night for a televised debate, this one a 90-minute session in San Francisco.
Times columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria absorbed the rhetorical blows, followed the heated back-and-forths and took in each and every one of the candidates’ myriad policy prescriptions. Here’s their assessment:
Arellano: Near the end of the debate, co-moderator and San Francisco Examiner editor-in-chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas groaned as candidates talked over each other while trying to answer a question that was supposed to elicit a yes or no response.
That’s pretty much how California voters have reacted to this primary.
In an era where politics are far too often about choosing the least worst option, voters in this election are left with the political version of the Angels baseball team.
No candidate has polled higher than 20-some percent — a testament to how many are in the running, but also an indication that none of them has truly captured the zeitgeist of today’s California.
This year’s debates have done little to catapult anyone to the top, and tonight was more of the same. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for, and no one inspired me to side with them. No one offered a clear vision of how they would pull Californians out of a spiritual malaise that has so many of us leaving the state, or thinking about leaving.
Instead, what I heard too many of the candidates evoke was the glories of the past — their past.
Antonio Villaraigosa’s closing remarks made a mantra out of “Dream with me,” a slogan he used back when he was L.A. mayor — that was 13 years ago.
Xavier Becerra bragged about how he stood up to President Trump as California attorney general — that was five years ago.
Katie Porter pulled out a white notebook with something written on it and directly challenged Becerra to answer a question — a callback to her time as a congressmember grilling people on Capitol Hill with a whiteboard and a marker, which she first made famous seven years ago.
The two Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, spoke of a halcyon California destroyed by feckless Democrats and vowed a return to those days.
The only candidates who didn’t live in the past were San José Mayor Matt Mahan and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer — but they seemed particularly out of their league, with Steyer too often looking down at notes instead of speaking off the cuff with his well-rehearsed populist pluck.
The word “nostalgia” first emerged to describe what doctors back then considered a malady, thinking it unwise to long for the past. It’s a concept historically antithetical to California, long boosted as the land of today and tomorrow by everyone from the Mission fathers to orange barons, developers to politicians. Indeed, nostalgia has sometimes been a dangerous factor in California politics, unleashing the Spanish fantasy heritage movement, Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and all sorts of other nonsense.
The two candidates who advance to the general election would be wise to offer Californians a hope for the future that doesn’t call back to our yesterdays. For now, the only real winners are the political consultants, and the only real losers are Californians, because we still don’t know for sure that any of the candidates can make things better.
All we can expect is that they’ll turn things for the worse.
Barabak: A popular expression — which Steyer mentioned — defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
By that measure, was the audience for Thursday night’s throwdown insane? Masochistic? Or a group of high-minded, dutiful, quite-conscientious California voters?
The leading gubernatorial candidates have been at this so long that they’re like actors in a stage troupe, delivering well-rehearsed lines, or an old band getting together to play their greatest hits, though far less melodious.
Among those reprising familiar roles were Steyer as the boastful billionaire; Bianco as the angry white avenger; Hilton as the chipper doomsayer; Mahan as the kid brother insinuating his way into the conversation; Porter as the left-wing tribune promising a progressive Valhalla; and Villaraigosa as the old political war horse.
Once more, Becerra was the focal point of attacks, befitting his newfound status as the candidate to beat. “This is what happens when you take the lead in polls,” he rightly noted.
And so rivals again assailed Becerra’s performance as state attorney general and Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. They accused of him being a shill for Big Oil. They tried, implying guilt-through-association, to rope Becerra into the scandal involving his former aides who embezzled from a dormant campaign account.
(Becerra, crisper and more lively than he’s previously been, noted that prosecutors in the case have described him as a victim and not a perpetrator or co-conspirator.)
It’s hard to see all the jostling and thrown elbows making a huge difference. The promises made and attacks scattered like buckshot on the San Francisco soundstage all seem much less important than the numbers that show up in opinion polls between now and Election Day.
Many Democrats, spooked by the prospect of their party being frozen out in June’s top-two primary, have been clinging to their ballots, intending to vote at the last moment for whichever Democrat appears likeliest to finish first.
In that way, the race seems to be shaping up as less a competition than a self-fulfilling prophecy. And Thursday night’s performance, while not wholly irrelevant, was just another television rerun broadcast to a less-than-mass audience.
Chabria: Here’s what I’ll say about Thursday night: It was a debate. The old-school kind where everybody is mostly well-behaved and polite, and the audience scrolls on their phones to stay awake.
The candidates themselves seemed low-energy, even with their jabs — which were largely directed at Becerra, as Mark said.
But no sparks also means we have more clarity. Barring an Eric Swalwell-style blow-up, the top three — Becerra, Steyer and Hilton — are really the only true contenders.
But I’ll give a shout-out to Porter, who had her best performance to date with answers that were clear and laid out policy with detail. Still, I fear it’s too little, too late.
Becerra, on the other hand, seemed subdued to the point of flat (sorry, Mark, he came off crisp like a week-old apple to me) often relying on the line that he sued Trump more than a hundred times as attorney general of California during Trump’s first term. I’m not sure that’s inspiring, though it did lead to some court victories.
Granted, Becerra has had a hard week, with a gaffe with a reporter that went viral and a plea deal by a former aide in that case of money misappropriated from his dormant campaign account. It’s not clear yet if voters care about either of those glitches — but if they stick in people’s minds, that could open a path for Steyer to scrape up the small margin he needs to get through the primary.
But Thursday night also did little to help Steyer’s cause — or hurt it. He made some clear, forceful points that positioned him as the changemaker progressive, especially around his policies on moving away from fossil fuels. He also had some convoluted answers that didn’t land. He didn’t give undecided voters much to work with.
I’ll end with one answer from Hilton that women should pay attention to: He said that if elected, he would allow California abortion providers to be extradited to states such as Louisiana to face criminal charges for mailing abortion medications.
Women across the U.S. now must rely on states such as California for any access to abortion care. Hilton’s position is not just bad for California but presents a risk to women everywhere.
For me, that answer should disqualify him for the highest office in our pro-choice state.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Spencer Pratt’s independent bid to make the Los Angeles mayoral runoff hangs in the balance nearly a week after Election Day.
With the jungle primary leaving incumbent Democrat Mayor Karen Bass already ruled to have advanced to a November runoff, Pratt’s margin over Democrat City Councilmember Nithya Raman has slimmed to just 1% with a few thousand ballots left to make up the difference.
Pratt led Raman by just 7,494 votes in the latest AP elections tally with 78% of the vote counted to date. Bass remained in first place with 235,180 votes (34.8%), while Pratt had 184,596 votes (27.3%) and Raman had 177,102 votes (26.2%).
Los Angeles County continues to count ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by Tuesday, June 9, drawing the attention of the Republican National Committee. The election results must only be counted within 30 days and certified by July 10.
CALIFORNIA’S SLUGGISH VOTE COUNTING RIPPED ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM: ‘EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING’
Either independent Spencer Pratt or Democrat Nithya Raman will advance to a November runoff against incumbent Democrat Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. (HIGHFIVE/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images; Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
“The California primary ended on June 2, 2026; yet California is still counting ballots,” the RNC website tracker counting the seconds since polls closed reads.
“The state’s election system is a complete joke. The RNC is tracking every hour it takes California to finish the count.”
The latest ballot update gave Raman another boost, as she picked up 23,514 votes in the latest batch, more than double Pratt’s 10,336-vote gain. That cut Pratt’s lead by 13,178 votes in a single day and pushed the contest for second place into uncertain territory.
Pratt posted a meme to X decrying the ongoing ballot count in the race.
“Me trying to figure out how votes get counted in LA,” he wrote Saturday night.
Los Angeles Mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt had become a viral sensation with his campaign ads, but pundits now expect his upstart campaign to unseat a Democrat mayor is going to come to an end. (Highfive/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)
Under California’s top-two primary system, if no candidate wins more than 50% of the votes, the two highest vote-getters advance to the general election. The AP reported that Bass advanced to the runoff after finishing first in the crowded mayoral primary, while Pratt and Raman continued battling for the remaining November spot.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., pointed to California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom when discussing the delayed results.
“The question to the rest of the world is what happened to California elections? Well, I’ll tell you, it’s Gavin Newsom,” McCarthy told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “When Gavin Newsom was elected governor of California, you knew who was elected in a day to two days. Now it takes more than weeks, almost a month.”
“Why did we get here?” McCarthy continued. “Gavin changed a number of election laws in which you want to see is what did he do and why did he cause it?”
WATCH: LEFT-WING LA MAYOR FACES REALITY TV CHALLENGER’S BLUNT TAKEDOWNS IN HEATED MAYORAL DEBATE
The slow count has drawn heightened attention because later-counted ballots have steadily cut into Pratt’s lead.
Longtime Democrat strategist Michael Trujillo told The California Post on Saturday that the trend pointed to a likely runoff appearance for Raman, calling the late ballot counting “normal” for California and telling critics to “go back to where you came from.”
“I was always a little jealous of east coast elections getting so much attention in the media and on this app, yeah nevermind,” he wrote on X. “The stupidity from these out of state analysts and reporters and the bots and fake accounts it brings to what is really a very NORMAL process happening in Los Angeles and California is annoying.
“Go back to where you came from, thanks.”
Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman might wind up No. 2 to fellow Democrat Mayor Karen Bass and advance to the November runoff. (Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
SPENCER PRATT SEIZES ON HOMELESSNESS REMARKS BY KAREN BASS, BLASTS DEMOCRAT FOR FAILURES
Conservatives on X are decrying the probability of Pratt being shut out of the runoff.
“Spencer Pratt is likely going to be overtaken by far left Nithya Raman today,” Robby Starbuck wrote on X. “This graph shows the count on Election Day through last night. “Nithya did this by suddenly winning 1st in every new ballot drop.
“North Korean ‘elections’ have more self respect. Even they’d find it absurd for 3rd to suddenly jump to 1st place in every ballot drop DAYS after an election. It’s just ludicrous.”
That post also brought the attention of X owner Elon Musk.
“The reason ID is banned in California (and New York) elections is to enable large-scale fraud,” Musk claimed on X, replying to Starbuck’s post. “When you combine no ID and mail-in voting, fraud is de facto legalized.”
SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES SIGNAL READINESS TO CURB LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS
Starbuck noted the historic run Raman’s count has made.
“ChatGPT can’t find a single example of a 3rd place candidate surging, days AFTER Election Day, to overtake 2nd place,” he wrote Sunday morning. “It couldn’t find 1 example in all of American history. That’s what’s happening with Nithya Raman & Spencer Pratt.
“Los Angeles has 3rd world country elections.”
Democrats merely point back to an overwhelming edge in registered Democrat voters versus Republicans, even if Pratt is running as an independent.
“IF SOMETHING CAN BE EXPLAINED BY A CONVOLUTED CONSPIRACY THEORY—OR SIMPLE MATH—THEN MATH ALWAYS WINS,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., wrote on X. “LA Registered Voters. Approximate number of Dems: 1,224,737 Approximate number of Republicans: 326,292.”
RNC RAILS AGAINST CALIFORNIA’S LATE MAIL-IN BALLOT COUNTING AMID NATIONAL LITIGATION: ‘IT IS ABSURD’
Americans “want to see election integrity,” McCarthy told host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday.
“They want to see transparency and they want to see timely reporting: We had that in California,” McCarthy, a former Republican House member in the deep-blue state, said. “We were very liberal in the rules about absentee ballots, but we had accountability.”
“We had cut off voter registration 30 days before the election. That helps the registrars to know who’s going to vote and the candidates,” he continued. “Now we have same day voter, and you don’t have to show ID. Gavin changed the rules where he mails ballots to everyone. So he took away the choice to Californians to vote in person or to vote absentee. Everybody gets mailed a ballot. But he didn’t clean up the rolls. So that raises doubt in people’s minds.”
McCarthy noted Raman’s Election Night disappointment was originally telling.
“When you look at the LA mayor’s race, the third place person gave it like a concession speech that night and cried, and she was getting the most votes in the last drop,” McCarthy said. “So if she didn’t even believe that she could move up, that puts in question to the whole election itself. And that’s why it brings doubt to people.”
President Donald Trump had weighed in, too, with the RNC pointing to the pending Watson v. RNC Supreme Court decision on late ballot counting due soon.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Watson decision might come before the end of June.
“.@POTUS is right,” the RNC’s Election Integrity unit posted on X. “That’s why the RNC has boots on the ground and is fighting in the Supreme Court to stop ballots received after Election Day from being counted. MAKE ELECTIONS SECURE AGAIN!”
The votes are still being tallied but the result of Tuesday’s top-two primary election in California seems pretty clear.
Despite an uptick in his performance, hopes for third-place finisher Tom Steyer are fading along with the number of uncounted ballots, suggesting Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton will face off in November.
Given the overwhelming Democratic advantage — both attitudinally and in registration — the outcome of the governor’s race might seem preordained. But it’s voters who decide elections, not know-it-all columnists.
Two of that breed, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria, can’t see into the future. But they can try to make sense of what just passed, starting with a primary season that was a strange mix of ennui and white knuckles.
Barabak: So Anita, now that the election is over how are you feeling? Relieved? Giddy? Depressed?
Chabria: Tired, with five months to go. And while it’s true neither of us can see into the future, it’s not too much of a long shot to predict that in a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the next governor will likely be blue.
So while the primary was bruising and confusing, the general election will be much more predictable — it’s Becerra’s to lose, and he’d have to try really hard to do that.
But here’s what I’ll be looking for in the lead up to November: How far will Hilton go to capitalize on this moment for personal gain? There are plenty of real issues to be discussed where the Republican-Democrat divide could offer worthy debate. What should we do about gas prices? What is the right balance between environmental regulation and building housing?
But my fear is, with little chance of winning, Hilton will instead focus on boosting his MAGA credentials.
In the past week, we’ve seen him dive headfirst into voter-fraud conspiracies, following the lead of President Trump. Hilton’s campaign is providing Trump with the biggest platform for this false propaganda of rigged elections that California has ever endured.
That is bad for our state and bad for democracy, and it’s troubling that we will likely be subjected to these lies — and that California could be used to further erode voting rights nationally — for the entire summer leading up to the midterms.
What will you be keeping an eye on?
Barabak: How Becerra spends the next five months.
One presumes he’s smart enough not to take anything for granted. Meaning he won’t spend the time between now and Nov. 3 at some swank beach resort, sipping one of those colorful cocktails with a little paper parasol while musing over his inaugural address.
So it will be interesting to see how Becerra campaigns and whether he uses the next several months to build a mandate and also to prepare California voters for the rough road ahead.
Becerra is smart enough, one would think, not to run as Mr. Sky Is Falling and tell voters, “Boy, oh, boy things are really gonna suck going forward.” But the next governor is going to face some really tough challenges, including a structural budget deficit that’s probably going to require both painful cuts and unpopular tax hikes.
On top of that, there are the inevitable disasters, be they earthquake, fire or flood, the latter quite possibly exacerbated this winter by what may be an epic El Niño. There’s also the continued challenge of dealing with a president who treats California the way a dog regards a fire hydrant.
Finally, there’s the unknowable but certain catastrophes the next governor will face.
All of it makes you wonder why anyone would want the job — though Steyer panted after it enough to burn through more than $215 million of his fortune in a bonfire of vanity.
Chabria: Steyer was bashed for being a self-funded billionaire, but what his support showed is that there is a significant contingent of voters who are tired of the status quo and want a governor with bold ideas.
California definitely faces many problems, but we are also historically a state that pushes forward on hard issues.
Universal healthcare and standing our climate ground in the face of federal rollbacks were two of Steyer’s big talking points, along with standing up to corporate influence. Becerra now inherits those thorny problems if he wants to form a more cohesive Democratic base.
Becerra hasn’t yet offered up his vision of the Golden State, as you point out. As much as it may benefit Hilton to focus on Trump in coming months, the same could be true for Becerra.
Why get into messy policy when you can run on opposing MAGA in a very blue state? I fear the next few months will be more about Trump than California.
Barabak: That’s a charitable way to look at $teyer’s campaign.
Sure, he had plenty of ideas, though I think the promise of delivering universal healthcare — a political nonstarter — was cheap pandering, not visionary leadership.
There’s no shortage of people with good ideas. The only reason anyone paid attention to Steyer, who’s never served in any elected office, was the obscene amount of money he spent on his luxury-class ego trip. So it pleases me voters didn’t reward his arrogance or buy his billionaire-turned-populist, “Amazing Grace” spiel. (“I once was blind, but now I see.”)
And I’m be gladder still that voters showed — once again — the governor’s office is not for sale.
I do agree, however, that Becerra should do more than just cry MAGA! MAGA! MAGA! for the next five months, as if that incantation is magic and will solve all our problems. That applies, by the way, to Democratic candidates everywhere.
All of that said, we should note the governor’s race has yet to be officially decided and Steyer still has at least a theoretical possibility of slipping into the top two.
What do you think about California’s prolonged, much-derided long ballot count? Is the criticism warranted?
Chabria: First, we’ll have to agree to disagree. California is on a healthcare cliff and even middle-class Americans (not just Californians) can’t afford either insurance or care.
Single-payer may be a dream, but it’s my dream — for my kids, for my community and for my state, because healthcare shouldn’t be just for the rich and that is increasingly the direction we are going. So any politician, Steyer included, who fights for inclusion rather than accepting exclusion will get my consideration.
And let’s be real — self-funded or corporate-funded — our elections are, to their detriment, too much about money. My outrage is for the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which unleashed the current no-limits mess and created a system in which it requires hundreds of millions from somewhere, anywhere to run for our highest offices.
But back to ballots: Slow is not fraud. Slow is not bad if it’s accurate. Slow allows for greater voter participation by allowing mail-in ballots, and carefully checking all ballots for problems. Slow takes into account the federal mangling of the post office that has, yes, slowed down our mail.
And, slow happens because most of our county elections offices are understaffed and budget-starved. If you want fast, you’ve got to pay for it.
So keep your britches on people and don’t buy Trump’s (or Hilton’s) manufactured hype. Every system can be improved, but there’s far worse problems than slow.
What’s your take on the ballot controversy?
Barabak: Here’s one where we agree.
California goes out of its way to make it easy to vote, which, I believe, is a very good thing. Kim Alexander of the non-partisan California Voter Foundation, who’s spent decades on the matter, has suggested ways we can have both wide access and a faster count, starting with better funding of the state’s over-extended county election offices.
This prolonged count is something Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-run Legislature could have anticipated. Shame on them for not doing more to address it.
Chabria: Any final thoughts?
Barabak: Just this. I’ve read the many plaintive pieces written about this boring, wholly-unworthy-of-the-Great-Golden-State field of gubernatorial candidates.
I, too, yearn for that perfect candidate who is firm but flexible, old and wise but youthful in his or her thinking, masculine but also feminine, brilliant but not too smart and larger than life but also totally relatable.
Maybe in 2030.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., cursed out a Fox News Digital reporter after he began asking about allegations of a sexual relationship between her and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that were recently raised by a woman identifying herself as Massie’s ex-girlfriend.
“F – – – you, first of all!’ Boebert said to a Fox News Digital reporter when bringing up claims from Massie’s alleged ex-girlfriend.
“If you’re gonna bring me into this, like, the sexist stuff is like out of control,” she continued. “So there’s your clickbait that you were looking for.”
FIVE TIMES NANCY PELOSI LOST HER COOL WITH THE MEDIA
Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., reacts to a Fox News Digital reporter’s question about allegations involving Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., before ending the interview and walking away. (Nicholas Ballasy/Fox News Digital)
Boebert then declined to discuss the allegations further.
The exchange came after Boebert had been discussing President Donald Trump’s efforts to unseat Republican incumbents and Massie’s political future.
The former congressional staffer Cynthia West, who previously worked for Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., accused Massie of bragging to her about an alleged sexual encounter with Boebert within weeks of his wife’s death.
West also accused Massie of offering her $5,000 to drop a wrongful termination lawsuit she was pursuing against Spartz, an ally of Massie. The allegations surfaced just a week before Massie lost his House seat in the May 19 Republican primary.
“I don’t want to talk about anybody’s exes and their crazy s– – – that they do,” Boebert said to the reporter.
Before the exchange turned contentious, Boebert was answering questions about whether Trump’s strategy of backing primary challengers against Republican incumbents is backfiring on the GOP agenda.
MTG SAYS GOP’S FUTURE ‘DESTROYED’ AFTER TRUMP-BACKED PRIMARY CHALLENGER DEFEATS THOMAS MASSIE IN PRIMARY
Rep. Lauren Boebert defended her support for Rep. Thomas Massie after criticism from President Donald Trump. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Salwan Georges/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“I think most of the folks that have lost their primaries, they were backfiring on the GOP agenda — Cassidy, Cornyn,” Boebert replied.
“I mean, obviously Thomas Massie is the only one that I’m a little sad about,” she said.
Boebert was also asked about Massie’s recent announcement that he is filing for re-election in 2028. Many are speculating that Massie could make a 2028 presidential run as he said he is unsure which position he will be seeking re-election for.
“I haven’t made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run,” he wrote in a post on X announcing his re-election filing with the Federal Election Commission.
TRUMP CALLS OUT REP THOMAS MASSIE: ‘KENTUCKY, GET THIS LOSER OUT OF POLITICS’ TUESDAY
Rep. Thomas Massie speaks with supporters after his concession speech in Hebron, Ky., on May 19, 2026. (Jon Cherry/Getty Images)
Boebert shared that she was unsure of Massie’s next move, before she reprimanded the reporter for shifting the conversation to allegations raised by West.
“He filed for something,” she said. “He didn’t specify what and I don’t know if he’s going to move forward with that or not. I don’t know.” “Hopefully he leaves here and makes some money,” Boebert added.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Moments later, the reporter began asking about the allegations from Massie’s alleged ex-girlfriend, prompting Boebert’s expletive-laced response.
Boebert declined to discuss the allegations further and walked away from the interview.
-
Missouri4 minutes agoTest Your Knowledge of Missouri’s “Book and Release” Law for…
-
Montana7 minutes agoGreat Falls High’s Steele Harris commits to Wisconsin
-
Nebraska12 minutes agoNebraska Football Flips Minnesota Edge Commit, Adding to Stellar Recruiting Weekend
-
Nevada19 minutes agoMeet the 2026 Nevada Preps All-Southern Nevada boys volleyball team
-
New Hampshire22 minutes agoPerson hospitalized with serious injuries after rollover crash in Nashua, NH – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
New Jersey27 minutes agoNew Jersey’s 34th annual LGBTQ+ Pride Celebration in Asbury Park
-
New Mexico34 minutes agoNew Mexico Forestry Division redirects seedling program to fire-damaged forests
-
North Carolina37 minutes agoUSC’s College World Series hopes shattered in heartbreaking loss to North Carolina
