For the sixth and final time before the votes are counted, the leading contenders for governor of California met 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 took the talking points, followed back and forth and took all the policy instructions of the crowd. Here is their review:
Arellano: Toward the end of the debate, San Francisco Examiner co-president and editor-in-chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas broke down as the panelists chatted while trying to answer a yes-or-no question.
That’s how California voters reacted to this primary.
At a time when politics is all about choosing the worst option, voters in this election were left with the political version of the Angels baseball team.
Neither candidate polled more than 20 percent — a testament to how many are running, but also an indication that none of them really captures the zeitgeist of today’s California.
This year’s debates have never done anything to elevate anyone to the top, and tonight was no exception. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for, and no one has encouraged me to vote for them. No one has offered a clear vision of how to get Californians out of the spiritual malaise that has so many of us leaving the country, or considering leaving.
Instead, what I heard from most of the candidates was the glories of the past – theirs the past.
Antonio Villaraigosa’s closing remarks made the mantra “Dream with me,” a slogan he used back when he was mayor of LA — 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 paper with something written on it and directly challenged Becerra to answer the question — a retrace of her time as a whiteboard-and-marker-decorating congressman on Capitol Hill, which she gained notoriety for seven years ago.
Two Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, spoke of the California halcyon destroyed by unscrupulous Democrats and vowed to return those days.
The only candidates who didn’t live up to the past were San José Mayor Matt Mahan and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer – but they seemed out of their league, as Steyer often downplayed the notes instead of talking down his takedowns of many well-behaved people.
The word “nostalgia” began to appear to describe what doctors back then considered a disease, thinking it was foolish to yearn for the past. It’s a concept historically incompatible with California, long promoted as the state of today and tomorrow by everyone from Mission Fathers to Orangemen, engineers to politicians. Indeed, nostalgia has sometimes been a dangerous thing in California politics, releasing the Hispanic heritage movement, Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and all other kinds of nonsense.
Two candidates advancing to the general election would be wise to give Californians hope for a future that does not return to our yesterdays. For now, the only real winners are the political consultants, and the only real losers are the people of California, because we still don’t know for sure that any of the candidates can make things better.
What we can expect is that things will change for the worse.
Barabak: A famous saying – attributed to Steyer – defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
By that measure, was Thursday night’s audience crazy? Masochistic? Or a group of high-minded, active, really conscientious California voters?
The leading gubernatorial candidates have been at it for so long that they are like stage troupes, delivering well-rehearsed lines, or an old-time band coming together to play their hits, albeit not the best.
Among those reprising regular roles are Steyer as a haughty billionaire; Bianco as the angry white avenger; Hilton as a chipper forecaster; Mahan as his younger brother injects his way into the conversation; Porter as a left wing boss who promises a progressive Valhalla; and Villaraigosa as an old political war horse.
Once again, Becerra was the center of the attack, matching his new status as a hit man. “This is what happens when you lead in an election,” he rightly remarked.
So rivals have also touted Becerra’s performance as state attorney general and Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. They accused him of being a shill for Big Oil. They are trying, which means they are federally guilty, to imprison Becerra in a scandal involving former aides who defrauded a defunct campaign account.
(Becerra, crisper and healthier than ever, noted that prosecutors in the case described him as a victim, not a perpetrator or accomplice.)
It’s hard to see all the rolling elbows and throws making much of a difference. The promises made and the attacks scattered like buckshot on the San Francisco soundstage all seem less important than the numbers showing in the opinion polls between now and Election Day.
Many Democrats, troubled by the prospect of their party being shut out of June’s top two, have been holding on to their votes, aiming to cast a last-minute vote on which Democrat appears likely to finish first.
In that way, the competition seems to be growing less like a competition than a self-fulfilling prophecy. And Thursday night’s performance, while inconsequential, was another television rerun to a sub-par audience.
Chabria: Here’s what I have to say on Thursday night: It was a debate. It’s kind of old school where everyone tends to be polite and polite, and the audience is scrolling through their phones to stay awake.
The candidates themselves appeared to be low-key, even with their jabs — mostly aimed at Becerra, as Mark said.
But there are no sparks and it means we have more clarity. Aside from an Eric Swalwell-style blowout, the top three — Becerra, Steyer and Hilton — are the only real contenders.
But I will give a shout out to Porter, who has been very efficient so far with clear answers and detailed policy. Still, I’m afraid it’s too little, too late.
Becerra, on the other hand, seemed humble to the point of being flat (sorry, Mark, he came off me like a week-old apple) often leaning on the line that he sued Trump more than 100 times as California’s attorney general during Trump’s first term. I’m not sure that’s encouraging, although it has led to some victories in the courts.
Admittedly, Becerra has had a rough week, with a gaffe with a reporter that went viral and a plea deal with a former aide in the case of misappropriation of money from his inactive campaign account. It’s not clear yet whether voters care about any of these pitfalls — but if they stick in people’s minds, it could pave the way for Steyer to scrape through the narrow margin he needs to advance to the primary.
But Thursday night also did little to help Steyer’s case — or hurt it. He has made clear, powerful points that position him as a progressive changer, especially regarding his policies to move away from fossil fuels. He also had confusing answers that didn’t come. He didn’t give undecided voters much to work with.
I’ll close with one response from Hilton that women should pay attention to: She said that if elected, she would allow abortion providers in California to be extradited to states like Louisiana to face criminal charges for supplying abortion drugs.
Women across the US now have to rely on states like California for any access to abortion care. Hilton’s position is not only bad in California but it shows the danger to women everywhere.
To me, that answer should disqualify him for the highest office in our pro-choice state.
