It’s beyond debate. California voters deserve a Becerra-Hilton face-off
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The Democratic front-runner has pledged he’ll share a stage with his Republican foe, but hasn’t said where or when.
- Hilton, in typical underdog fashion, is eager to meet anytime, anyplace.
Barring some extraordinary event — a health emergency, a career-ending scandal, a killer asteroid destroying all life on earth — Xavier Becerra will be the next governor of California.
That’s not partiality or wish casting on the part of your friendly political columnist. The fact is Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans in California, in both registration and inclination.
The GOP brand has been political poison in this Tahoe-blue bastion for decades now. But under Donald Trump, it’s grown even more toxic. His endorsement, which the president bestowed upon Republican Steve Hilton mid-primary, is the political equivalent of sarin; like the deadly nerve agent, it can kill on contact.
Still, give credit where due.
The gregarious and media-savvy Hilton has been waging an energetic and effervescent run for governor, with multiple appearances a day and frequent updates to his cheeky social media accounts.
“He’s going to San Francisco” — into the bowels of the liberal beast — “he’s going into schools, talking to labor groups,” said Hector Barajas, a campaign spokesman. “He’ll go everywhere.”
Becerra not so much.
The Democrat has appeared here and there since finishing first in the June 2 primary, securing one of two slots in November’s runoff. He’s offered a few modest proposals, including a plan to deliver two free hours of electricity a day to low-income households and a call for stiffer regulation of artificial intelligence.
A sprint vs. a stroll
That said, if Hilton is flat-out running for a job he stands virtually no chance of winning, Becerra is embarked on more of a leisurely stroll toward his all-but-certain perch in Sacramento.
That’s not a terrible thing at this midsummer stage of the race. Once, in the blessed era before the 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of social media, there was a lull in the months after the primary, with campaign activities picking back up around Labor Day.
On Tuesday, during a walking tour of Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo neighborhood, Becerra pushed back on the notion he was taking his election — and California voters — for granted. “If I were trying to coast,” he told reporters, “I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all.”
Becerra’s pace aside, the days between now and the Nov. 3 election offer him plenty of time to spell out what, exactly, he has to offer his home state and how, in a broad sense, he plans to tackle one of the highest profile, most vexing jobs in all of American politics.
At least one of those days should include a face-to-face debate between Hilton and Becerra. The two shared a stage multiple times during the primary season. They have not appeared together since.
More than a half-dozen news organizations have offered to host the gubernatorial rivals in a one-on-one session. Several other groups have proposed forums that would allow them to discuss their differences together in person.
Barajas, the spokesman for Hilton’s campaign, said the Republican hopeful has agreed to each and every invitation.
“He’s got absolutely no problem” appearing anytime or anywhere, Barajas said. “He will go to East L.A.. He will go to South-Central. He will go into the heart of the Central Valley. It doesn’t matter to him.”
That’s no surprise.
When a candidate is an underdog, like Hilton, they’ll typically show up at the opening of an envelope if it means appearing before a crowd. Conversely, a candidate on a seeming glide path to election, like Becerra, will often balk at giving their opponent the exposure afforded by a debate, much less risk harming themselves with a bad performance.
The Democratic front-runner said Tuesday that “there will be debates,” though he didn’t say where or when.
An obligation to voters
There’s a lot of virtue signaling that surrounds the notion of candidate debates.
Far from a high-minded discussion of policy differences, they often devolve into a stale recitation of talking points and pre-scripted zingers. After a while, debates can grow redundant and, frankly, boring as contestants repeat well-worn phrases and replow deeply furrowed ground. Such was the case by the time California’s gubernatorial hopefuls met for their sixth televised debate in the spring.
Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton are competing in the race for California governor. Here’s what you need to know about the candidates.
Most voters — many of whom profess to care oh-so-deeply about issues and matters of great import — don’t even bother tuning in. If they found debates that captivating, shows such as the “PBS NewsHour” would routinely outdraw the latest season of “Love Island USA.”
No matter.
There is an audience, however limited, for debates. Even if they don’t bother watching, many voters read about the encounters afterward, catch snippets online, or glean useful insights from the extensive coverage that follows.
Above all, a willingness to debate is a sign of respect — for voters as well as the political process the candidates are a part of. Minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may play to Becerra’s inherently cautious nature. It also makes sense from a purely strategic standpoint.
But it doesn’t serve the people of California, or give voters their due. This is a campaign for governor. Not a coronation.
Becerra owes California, and Hilton, the chance to take the candidates’ measure side by side before their contest is over. The sooner Becerra commits to a time and place, the better.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: Trump turns to containing the fallout from setbacks in Iran
The deep dive: War was supposed to crush Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance.’ Instead, it’s bloodied but unbroken
The L.A. Times Special: Xavier Becerra won’t deliver the home runs — or strikeouts — racked up by Newsom, Schwarzenegger
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
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 article argues that, given Democrats’ commanding registration advantage and the long-term weakness of the Republican brand in California, Becerra is almost certain to become the next governor, turning the race into what feels like a glide path rather than a true contest.
- The column portrays Hilton as an energetic underdog who eagerly seeks exposure, noting that recent reporting shows Hilton publicly accepting every televised debate invitation and challenging Becerra to appear alongside a symbolic empty podium, calling the lack of commitments “outrageous.”[2][8] At the same time, the piece depicts Becerra as running a cautious, low-key campaign with relatively few high-profile events since the primary, reinforcing the perception that the front-runner is content to “stroll” toward an all-but-assured victory.
- The article acknowledges that debates often fall short of their lofty reputation, frequently devolving into rehearsed talking points, stale zingers and repetitive exchanges that can bore viewers, especially after multiple primary debates featuring large fields of candidates. It notes that television audiences for such events are typically modest compared with popular entertainment programming, undercutting the notion that debates are the pinnacle of civic engagement.
- Yet the column insists that, despite their flaws, debates still serve an important public function by offering even a limited audience a side-by-side comparison of candidates, generating post-debate coverage and clips that reach wider audiences, and signaling respect for voters and the democratic process. It emphasizes that a willingness to debate is less about producing soaring rhetoric and more about showing Californians that contenders are willing to confront each other’s ideas in public.
- The article points out that Becerra has said there “will be debates,” a stance echoed in news reports quoting the Democrat pledging more than one debate with Hilton and promising that voters “will have good information” before Nov. 3.[3][5] However, the piece maintains that vague assurances are not enough and that Becerra should commit to a specific time and place, framing a face-to-face debate as an obligation rather than a tactical option.
- The column ultimately contends that minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may be shrewd from a purely strategic standpoint—reducing risk for a front-runner and denying an underdog free exposure—but argues that such a strategy disrespects voters and cheapens the campaign. It insists this is a race for governor, not a coronation, and concludes that Becerra owes Californians, and Hilton, the opportunity to assess both candidates side by side before Election Day.
Different views on the topic
- Some political professionals and observers argue that the value of additional debates is limited, noting that voters have already seen Becerra and Hilton tangle repeatedly during the primary in large, contentious forums that covered major issues such as affordability, housing, gas prices and insurance.[1][4][6] From this perspective, yet another televised showdown risks becoming redundant political theater rather than a meaningful civic exercise.
- Critics of overemphasizing debates point out that earlier events in the race often drew only modest audiences even when billed as “the largest and most inclusive debate” of the campaign, with eight candidates onstage and broad statewide coverage.[4][7] They argue that in a fragmented media environment, voters increasingly learn about candidates through clips, interviews, policy guides and local appearances rather than full-length debates, weakening the case that an additional one-on-one event is indispensable.
- The article itself notes a widely held view that debates frequently devolve into canned lines and “gotcha” moments rather than substantive policy exploration, reinforcing skepticism among some voters and strategists about their usefulness. Those who share this view contend that campaign resources might be better spent on town halls, community visits and targeted outreach that allow for deeper, less performative conversations with Californians.
- Becerra’s campaign has advanced a contrasting narrative, emphasizing that the Democrat is focused on building a broad coalition and meeting voters across the state rather than responding to every provocation from Hilton.[2][5] In this telling, Becerra’s promise that there will be debates—paired with a busy schedule of events like the Little Tokyo walk—shows a commitment to voter engagement without ceding control of the campaign calendar to a rival framed as a Trump-aligned publicity seeker.[2][3][5]
- Supporters of Becerra’s approach argue that a front-runner has no obligation to grant an underdog multiple prime-time platforms, especially when those events can be used to repackage partisan attacks already aired during the primary.[2][6] They contend that limiting debates is a legitimate strategic choice, not a sign of disrespect, and that voters can still make informed decisions through policy proposals, media coverage and on-the-ground campaigning.
- Some voices sympathetic to Becerra maintain that the recent pledge to participate in more than one debate between now and Nov. 3 should effectively settle the issue, suggesting that continued controversy over the number and timing of debates distracts from substantive policy discussion.[3][5] From this vantage point, the central task for campaigns and the press is to scrutinize the candidates’ records and plans on issues like affordability, housing and governance, rather than fixating on whether a particular debate format or schedule has been satisfied.[1][3][6]
