- State & Local
- California
“Decision Day” in America comes in various shapes and forms—on May 1, for example, the deadline for many a high school senior to commit to a college for the fall semester.
In the world of California politics, however, “decision day” took on a different meaning this year. Late last week, it was the deadline for political candidates to decide whether to enter a June primary contest. Or, for declared candidates wanting out, a last chance to quit their respective race lest their name remain on the ballot as a zombie presence.
So how did this affect a California governor’s race and a “top-two primary” in which progressive elders fear too many Democrats watering down their party’s share of the June turnout would end up in the almost comical notion of two Republican candidates advancing to the general election in November (comical in the sense that Democrats own a nearly 20-point advantage in voter registration)?
As it turns out, not much.
Only one Democrat quit the governor’s race: former Assembly leader Ian Calderon. If you’ve never heard of him, neither have most Californians. Calderon was polling at the back of the pack (this Emerson College survey had him at less than 1 percent).
So where does that leave matters, with the June 2 primary now less than eight weeks away?
Eight Democrats will compete to become California’s forty-first governor: former Health and Human Services secretary and state attorney general Xavier Becerra; San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan; former congresswoman Katie Porter; billionaire Tom Steyer; Representative Eric Swalwell; state schools chief Tony Thurmond; former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; and former controller Betty Yee.
And on the Republican side: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton. A third Republican, tech entrepreneur Jon Slavet, quit the race last week).
Does this mean the unlikely pairing of two Republican gubernatorial candidates on the November ballot (not since 1990 has California opted for a non-incumbent Republican in a non-recall gubernatorial race)?
Don’t bet on it—but if you must, then make sure to get generous odds.
If a primary simulator built by the California political data analyst Paul Mitchell is to be believed (Mitchell, by the way, is the architect of last year’s congressional gerrymander in California), there’s a roughly one-in-four chance of two Republicans advancing to November. But those odds may be longer because deep-pocket special interests with a vested interest in having a Democrat run the state—we’re talking labor unions and the all-powerful California Teachers Association—likely will spend considerable sums to drive down either Hilton’s or Bianco’s numbers in hope of relegating at least one of the two to a third-place finish or worse.
So, what does all of this say about the current state of what should be the Golden State’s most glamorous race in 2026?
Three things.
First, it’s readily apparent that the Democratic power apparatus has little control over its minions when it comes to downsizing races. In this case, the Golden State’s dominant political party has had the worst experience with “shrinkage” since Seinfeld’s George Costanza “was in the pool.”
Before last week’s filing deadline, California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks made an unusually blunt public plea to those Democrats barely treading water in the governor’s race: please, get out. Only Calderon got the message. Someone who didn’t: Becerra, the former state attorney general whose polling likewise has been confined to single digits. (According to Mitchell’s simulator—granted, this was posted by Villaraigosa, the other prominent Latino in the race—Becerra’s departure from the race would drop the all-GOP scenario to a one-in-twelve likelihood).
Second, “eight” (as in the number of prominent Democrats on the primary ballot) won’t be great as far as intraparty comity is concerned.
In the past week alone, Steyer has questioned Swalwell’s eligibility to run for governor —the former demanding the latter show proof of residency in California. Original opposition research it’s not, as Swalwell’s residency—or lack thereof—was the subject of a lawsuit filed two months ago. That’s on top of Steyer going after Swalwell’s congressional attendance record in a snarky video.
Meanwhile, Thurmond, the only African-American among the eight vying Democrats, decided to play a race card, with a few swipes at wealth and character.
“The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every candidate of color . . . to drop out,” Thurmond said in this social-media video. “Instead, they want a billionaire (Steyer), a man who doesn’t even bother showing up for work in Congress (Swalwell), and a person who tears into her staff and reporters on the regular (Porter)—all white candidates—to stay in the race.”
Third, there’s the quizzical role that Governor Gavin Newsom plays in his party’s affairs—not a kingmaker, yet a monarch distracted by his own quest for greater glory.
Asked before the filing deadline why he wasn’t pitching in to help winnow the Democratic field, Newsom replied: “People aren’t talking to me about it, which is interesting this late, just weeks before early voting. As a consequence, I’m not directly as engaged as perhaps I might need to be.”
Remember those words: “not directly as engaged as perhaps I might need to be.” As the remainer of 2026 plays out, an ongoing political saga in California will be the conflict between Newsom’s day job and his moonlighting (in broad daylight) as a 2028 presidential hopeful.
Last week, while the Democrats who hope to replace him were busy squabbling, Newsom was instead busy opining on such non-California matters as his evolving views on the state of Israel amid a book tour that seems to be more about political grandstanding than peddling his pre-gubernatorial memoir. If, as Newsom suggests when parroting progressive talking points, Israel is guilty of apartheid, shouldn’t he impose a state-worker travel ban or pressure CalPERS California-based to divest from assets germane to the Jewish state?
One final thought about California’s unusual governor’s race: to the extent Democrats may resent the current “top two” voting system, they should also look at a design flaw in the state’s constitutional offices.
At present, California is one of just seventeen states in America that elect governor and lieutenant governor separately (beginning this year, New York will switch to a system whereby candidates for governor and lieutenant governor share a ticket in the primary and general election).
Historically, the lack of a gubernatorial ticket has made for odd and sometimes juvenile politics in Sacramento, such as the governor and lieutenant governor not working together because of partisan differences or simply not liking each other (I’m thinking back to 1999, when a rift between then-governor Gray Davis and then–lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamente resulted in the latter losing Capitol parking spaces).
In a California where the lieutenant governor is seen more as a working partner than a seat warmer when the sitting governor leaves California airspace, perhaps that would allow the lieutenant governor to run as an heir apparent—political continuum, if you will.
But that’s not the case in the California of 2026. The three Democrats with the best chance of surviving the June primary—Porter, Steyer, and Swalwell—all lack a Sacramento pedigree. Unlike the past three Democratic governors—Newsom, Davis, and Jerry Brown—none held a state constitutional office before running for the top job.
On the one hand, a lack of a Sacramento pedigree makes it easier for these Democratic hopefuls to rail against a status quo that is their party’s responsibility. Democrats control every statewide office, plus have supermajority control of both legislative chambers.
On the other hand, it means California’s next governor could enter office with far too much naivete and a rude awakening once he or she takes the oath of office. Remember this should Steyer, if elected, try to make good on his vow to hold a special election in 2027 and a rewrite the commercial-property side of California’s vaunted Proposition 13 (the same concept, in the form of 2020’s Proposition 15, was rejected by California voters).
To the adage “heavy is the head that wears the crown”: does that apply to a field of state Capitol lightweights?
