-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
It’s difficult to imagine that, come the general election, California voters will be asked to choose between two Republicans for their next governor.
Scratch that. It’s actually the stuff of nightmares.
For the record:
10:05 a.m. April 3, 2026An earlier version of this article misstated the first name of the Riverside County sheriff. He is Chad Bianco, not Todd.
We aren’t talking Arnold Schwarzenegger-style moderate Republicans who could end up vying to lead this very blue state. We are talking about a couple of extremists.
One, Steve Hilton, is a Trump-aligned, British-born Fox News contributor, a 2020 election denier, and former director of strategy to British Prime Minister David Cameron — the man who unleashed the Brexit mess on his fellow citizens.
The other is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, so desperate for a pat on the head from President Trump that he seized 650,000 of last November’s ballots as part of a transparently bogus “investigation” to determine whether they were fraudulently counted. What an old, tired gesture. It’s a wonder Bianco, a onetime Oath Keeper, didn’t do something more original… like, I dunno, try to bomb Iran himself.
Still, this GOP pair could conceivably garner the top two spots in California’s June 2 primary, which means they would face each other in November. Why? Because they are the only two Republicans running, while an octet of Democrats have fractured the polls.
They include former California Atty Gen. Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (new darling of Silicon Valley’s deep-pocketed techies), former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire entrepreneur Tom Steyer, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, schools Superintendent Tony Thurman, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Controller Betty Yee.
Polls show Bianco (14-16%) and Hilton (16-17%) at the top. So far, the only Dems polling in double digits — but barely — are Swalwell, Porter and Steyer, who has spent nearly $100 million of his own money so far. The others range from about 5% down to barely more than 1% (that distinction goes to Thurmond and Yee.)
A whopping 24% of voters are undecided.
This bulging field led Rusty Hicks, chairman of the California Democratic Party, to gently suggest three days before the March 6 filing deadline that low-polling candidates drop out.
“If you do not have a viable path to make it to the General Election,” he wrote in an open letter to the candidates, “do not file to place your name on the ballot for the Primary Election.”
They all filed.
“If you decide to file,” Hicks continued, “be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate on or before April 15 if your campaign cannot show meaningful progress toward winning.”
So far, no one has dropped out.
“Because this field is so weak,” said my friend Melanie Mason, Politico’s California bureau chief, “and even the front-runners have flaws, they look at each other and say ‘Why can’t it be me?’”
Mason compared the situation to the famous Prisoners’ Dilemma, a game theory scenario that shows how when people act in their own self-interest, they can end up hurting themselves and their opponents.
I admit, the large, low-polling Democratic field had me feeling anxious. Are Democrats engaged in a circular firing squad?
I called Villaraigosa to ask him why he’s not dropping out. He made a pretty good case for why he shouldn’t. “It’s too early,” he said. “If we were in May and people were undecided, that’s one thing. But we are in March and no candidate has more than ‘Undecided.’ Elections are fluid.”
It’s true. My colleague Mark Z. Barabak wrote the other day about former California Gov. Gray Davis, who won the 1998 governor’s race in a landslide after his two well-funded primary opponents (multimillionaires Al Checchi and Jane Harman) committed what Davis’ campaign manager Garry South described as a “murder-suicide.”
“It’s fine for someone else to tell you you should get out,” Davis told Barabak. “But that’s not their business. You’re the candidate, and if you think for whatever reason you want to stay in the race, you should stay in the race.”
I asked Villaraigosa, half kidding, whether he had engaged in some back-room dealing with his opponents — you know, If I drop out and you win, you give me a plum job. He laughed and said, “Like what? Head of the DMV? It’s not like the presidency.”
The large Democratic field has complicated the logistics for debate sponsors. On Monday, my colleagues Seema Mehta and Nicole Nixon reported, USC canceled a debate that was scheduled to take place less than 24 hours later. The formula the school used to determine who could participate, which included both Republicans and four Democrats, excluded all the candidates of color (Villraigosa and Becerra are Latino, Thurmond is Black and Yee is Chinese American.) Not a good look for a state that prides itself on its diversity and has actively opposed Trump’s efforts to strangle DEI.
“Everybody lost,” Villaraigosa said.
I’m not so sure. The cancellation generated plenty of news, which probably drew more attention to the governor’s race than any debate would have. It would appear that “undecided” is finally tuning into the race.
Feels like a win to me.
Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The two leading Republican candidates represent dangerous extremism rather than moderate Republicanism, with one being a Trump-aligned, British-born Fox News contributor and 2020 election denier, while the other is a former member of the Oath Keepers militia group[1] who seized ballots in a baseless investigation[2].
While it may seem strategically foolish for eight Democratic candidates to remain in the race and risk a Republican-only general election matchup, the primary is still too early for meaningful consolidation, as no single candidate has established dominant support and political races remain fluid with unpredictable voter movement[1].
Historical precedent suggests low-polling Democratic candidates should not prematurely exit the race simply because they lack current polling strength, as demonstrated by former Governor Gray Davis, who won his 1998 gubernatorial election decisively after entering his primary with relatively low support while his better-funded opponents battled each other[1].
Calls from Democratic Party leadership for lower-polling candidates to drop out are misguided given the current electoral landscape, where a substantial 24-25% of voters remain undecided and could shift the dynamics of the race substantially before the June primary[1][3].
The cancellation of a debate due to flawed qualification criteria inadvertently increased media attention to the gubernatorial race rather than diminishing it, potentially energizing previously disengaged voters[1].
Different views on the topic
Democratic Party leadership has expressed serious concern that the fragmented eight-candidate field risks allowing both Republicans to advance to November, with state party chair calling for candidates without a viable path to drop out and warning that staying in the race risks weakening the party’s electoral prospects[1].
The top two Republican candidates have demonstrated stronger consolidated support within their base compared to Democrats, where delegates at the state party convention were so split that no candidate secured the party endorsement, creating a mathematical possibility of a Republican-only general election runoff[1].
Republican candidates argue that California voters have become fatigued with Democratic governance and are increasingly receptive to GOP messaging on affordability and crime, suggesting the Republican field’s presence reflects genuine voter appetite for change after over a decade of Democratic leadership[4].
Some Republican strategists have criticized the Democratic field’s failure to consolidate, with one Republican candidate arguing that internal Democratic infighting has undermined a potential two-Republican scenario that could have challenged Democratic dominance[5].
Political analysts have warned that the crowded Democratic field raises the risk of splitting votes in ways that prevent any Democrat from securing a top-two spot, with modeling showing a 27% chance that two Republicans advance to the general election[1][6].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
