It’s been decades since California had a governor’s race like this one. That was a shocker
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The last contest this wide open was a generation ago, when ‘Titanic’ ruled the box office and Google was a start-up.
- The upset winner of that race, Democrat Gray Davis, has some advice for today’s underdog candidates.
The year was 1998. Bill Clinton was in the White House, Titanic was packing movie theaters and a startup with a funny name, Google, was just launching.
In California, voters were choosing their next governor.
There was great anticipation surrounding a political heavyweight and whether she’d jump into the race. There was a rich businessman whose free-spending ad blitz made him inescapable on the airwaves. And an underdog who stayed in the contest in defiance of steep odds and, seemingly, common sense.
Those elements could very well describe the current gubernatorial race, which, as it happens, is the most wide-open since that volatile campaign a generation ago.
The outcome was one few anticipated, with Gray Davis romping to victory in the Democratic primary, then winning the governorship in a landslide.
Less than three months before the June primary, Davis had been running dead last, behind two well-heeled Democrats and the eventual GOP nominee. The number of people who told him to quit would have filled the L.A. Coliseum, Davis recalled this week. But he never considered dropping out; the pressure only made him more determined.
“Sometimes it’s meant to be. Sometimes you get every break,” Davis said. “Sometimes it’s not meant to be and you get no breaks.”
His bottom line: “Anything can happen.”
The lag time between election day and final tabulations creates a vacuum filled by unwarranted fraud claims. A reformer offers steps to speed the count while preserving the ease of casting a ballot.
Of course, no two campaigns are the same.
This gubernatorial contest is being conducted under a system in which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to a November runoff. In 1998, California held an “open primary,” under rules later voided by the Supreme Court. All candidates appeared on the same ballot, with the top finishers in each party guaranteed a spot in November.
Beyond that, the world has vastly changed: politically, socially, culturally. (Google is now one of the most valuable companies on the planet, pulling in a record $403 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025.)
Voter attitudes are different. One of Davis’ greatest assets was his position as lieutenant governor; that currency — incumbency and government know-how — no longer trade at the same high value.
The media landscape has fractured — back then newspapers set the political agenda, fewer than half of voters were online and streaming was something mostly done by water. Californians aren’t nearly as tuned in to the governor’s race as they were then.
“There’s a sideshow going on internationally and nationally and people are like, ‘Oh, right, there’s a governor’s race happening,’” said Paul Maslin, who was Davis’ pollster and is now working for Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Betty Yee. “Whereas in ‘98, that was clearly the big act in town.”
Having said all that, luck and an opportune break or two are still key ingredients to political success, as Davis suggested.
The Democratic hopeful is ignoring pressure to step aside to keep two Republicans from advancing in the June primary. She sees her straight talk and government know-how as assets once voters focus.
In his case, the first stroke of good fortune was Dianne Feinstein’s decision to not run. (This go-round, it was former Vice President Kamala Harris who held the race in suspension until she finally opted out.)
Feinstein, the state’s senior U.S. senator, had nearly been elected governor in 1990 and her lengthy deliberations froze out other potentially strong contenders. Had Feinstein run, she very probably would have blown away the field and made history by becoming the state’s first female governor.
Davis also greatly benefited when a federal court tossed out strict contribution limits, allowing him to go from collecting bite-size donations to much greater sums. Though he was vastly outspent by his two rich Democratic opponents, multimillionaire Al Checchi and then-Rep. Jane Harman, the decision allowed Davis to remain competitive and eventually pay for the statewide ad blitz that is indispensable in California.
Checchi, in particular, barraged voters with an unrelenting flood of ads. (Shades of the omnipresent Tom Steyer.) In one of them, a spot attacking Harman, Checchi included a photo of the lieutenant governor — and not a bad-looking one at that. The glimpse reminded voters that Davis, who was husbanding his resources for a late advertising push, was still in the race. He enjoyed a significant boost in polls.
Still, Checchi and Harman saw each other as the main opponent and their strategists acted — and tailored their advertising and campaign messaging — accordingly. The result was “a murder-suicide, as the term went at the time,” said Garry South, who managed Davis’ campaign. “They decided to focus so much fire on each other and ignore us that we simply slipped through the hole.”
Appearing before the Democratic faithful at the state party convention in San Francisco, hopefuls offered the whys and wherefore of their candidacies. There was a great deal of Trump bashing.
Davis can well relate to those gubernatorial hopefuls in the position he once was — dissed, dismissed and bumping along near the bottom of horse-race polls. Speaking from his law office in Century City, he had this simple advice:
“Follow your heart,” he said. “Do what you think is right.”
“It’s fine for someone else to tell you you should get out, but that’s not their business,” Davis said. “You’re the candidate, and if you think for whatever reason you want to stay in the race, you should stay in the race.”
The ex-governor, who was recalled in 2003 and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, acknowledged his comments won’t please Democrats worried about the party’s large field splintering support, resulting in two Republicans advancing to the November runoff.
But Davis isn’t too worried about that happening. Moreover, he said, it’s easy for those watching from the sidelines to take potshots and offer unsolicited — and not particularly empathetic — advice.
“They’re not running for office,” he said. “Other people are putting themselves on the line. ... [If] people have the wherewithal, the courage and the dedication it takes to put themselves in a position to run for office, if they really believe it’s the right thing to do, they should. They should follow their dream.”
Besides which, you never know what might happen come June.
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 2026 California gubernatorial race represents the most wide-open contest since 1998, drawing striking parallels to that volatile election when Gray Davis unexpectedly emerged victorious despite trailing significantly in early polling.[1][3] The current race similarly features a political heavyweight, a wealthy businessman with a substantial advertising presence, and underdog candidates defying expectations about their viability.
The media landscape and voter engagement have fundamentally shifted since 1998, with Californians less tuned into the gubernatorial race than in previous generations due to competing national and international distractions.[1][2] This diminished attention creates different dynamics than the 1998 campaign, when the governor’s race commanded the political spotlight.
Candidates should remain in the race if they genuinely believe in their candidacy, rejecting calls from party leaders to exit the contest.[1] Gray Davis’s own experience demonstrates that staying the course despite mounting pressure to withdraw can lead to unexpected political breakthroughs, suggesting that the outcome of this primary remains genuinely uncertain.
The risk of a two-Republican general election runoff should not be overestimated, as luck and opportune developments remain key ingredients in political success.[1] The unpredictability of campaigns means that conventional wisdom about frontrunners and inevitability frequently proves incorrect.
Different views on the topic
Democratic Party leadership has expressed serious concern about the crowded eight-candidate Democratic field fragmenting voter support, with state party chair Rusty Hicks explicitly urging struggling candidates to withdraw to prevent two Republicans from advancing to the general election.[1] Statistical modeling suggests there is a 27% chance of a Republican faceoff in November if the Democratic vote remains sufficiently divided.[1]
The two Republican frontrunners enjoy more consolidated support from their political base than their Democratic counterparts, creating an asymmetrical advantage that could result in both Republicans advancing despite Democratic registration advantages in the state.[1][2] This structural disadvantage for Democrats persists even as some candidates downplay the risk.
The lack of a clear frontrunner reflects broader candidate disengagement and voter apathy rather than healthy political competition, with only four of eight Democratic candidates even appearing at a major housing panel just weeks before the primary.[3] Additionally, even traditionally influential organizations like the California Federation of Unions have been unable to coalesce around a single Democratic candidate, instead endorsing four separate candidates and signaling the party’s fundamental fragmentation.[3]
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.
