This is the most compelling California governor’s race in ages. Really.
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Voters, unlike some pundits, aren’t looking to be entertained or amused by the state’s next leader.
- In the absence of a putative A-list candidate, the crowded field has yielded good, healthy competition.
Pity poor California.
It’s not just the eye-watering price of gasoline, the absurd cost of housing, the rising price of utilities and groceries, the Trump-led assault on the state’s immigrant population and his attack on California’s long-cherished values of tolerance and diversity.
No, on top of all that voters have been subjected to — the horror! — a dull and drab gubernatorial campaign, burdened by a surfeit of C- and D-list candidates with all the electricity and elan of a tepid bath.
Where are the A-listers? Where are the lights? The cameras? The action?
That, anyway, is the perspective one gets reading a certain genre of campaign dispatch, written from the perspective that all of California, Land of Reagan and Schwarzenegger, home to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, incubator of the Next Big Thing, is a stage. Woe unto those who fail to entertain, animate or amuse.
The fact that those dreary assessments have very little to do with the actual wants and needs of the vast majority of Californians — not to mention the state’s history of electing mostly dull and drab governors — should give their authors pause.
It hasn’t.
Contra all the stifled yawns and thinly veiled condescension, the contest — now in its final stretch — is the most compelling California gubernatorial campaign in decades. And not just because one of the leading contestants torched himself and his political livelihood in a bonfire of hubris and stupidity.
As ballots arrive at homes throughout the state, residents have to decide when to vote, so they can respond to late-breaking events but not risk their ballot arriving too late to count.
Come November, voters could elect the first female governor in state history, or possibly the first Latino governor in more than 150 years. (They might also install California’s first billionaire governor, a considerably less uplifting and monumental achievement, but historic nonetheless.)
Depending on the result, the election could also solidify a notable shift in California’s political power balance, from the long-reigning San Francisco Bay Area (think Govs. Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and U.S. Sens. Alan Cranston, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) to Southern California (think Sens. Adam Schiff, Alex Padilla and, possibly, Gov. Xavier Becerra or Katie Porter.)
True, there’s no pyrotechnic personality in the expansive field of gubernatorial hopefuls. But this is no group of slouches.
“Look at the resumes of these people. There’s nothing embarrassing,” said Jim Newton, a UCLA historian who’s written a shelf-load of biographies of Californians as disparate as Earl Warren and Jerry Garcia. The contenders, he noted, include a former state attorney general and Biden Cabinet member, a high-profile ex-congresswoman, the aforementioned hedge-fund billionaire and men with experience running two of the state’s most populous cities. “That’s a pretty good range of backgrounds in candidates for governor.”
With no glitz, no glamour, what’s a star-seeking, celebrity-hungry voter to do? If you believe the stereotype, Californians take their political cues more from Variety and In Touch magazine than, say, their voter guide or the flood of TV ads and campaign mailers that inundate the state every two years.
In truth, the Hollywood stars elevated to the governorship, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been the exception — spaced nearly four decades apart — and far from the norm. Both political insurgents were elected under extraordinary circumstances. Reagan amid the tumult and tectonic fracturing of the 1960s Civil Rights and Free Speech movements. Schwarzenegger in an unprecedented, rapid-fire recall of an enormously unpopular governor.
Far more typical are the likes of George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis. Each was a career politician who spent decades laboriously climbing the government rungs before being elected governor. Collectively, they were featured on the cover of People magazine precisely zero times.
The three were, to use Newton’s description, “mainstream, politically tested, not flashy.” Which also happens to describe several of those currently aspiring to be governor.
Drab, but true.
Boring as it may seem, most Californians want someone who’ll focus on their workaday concerns, not jollification. For all the talk of the “attention economy” — the hearts and minds won by jokey memes, viral videos and other snackable morsels on social media — voters are much more focused on the real economy, which is to say putting food on their table, maintaining a roof over their head and keeping their car fueled and home at a bearable temperature.
“It’s not virtual reality,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California Republican strategist and one of the state’s most astute political observers. “It’s reality reality.”
“That may not be interesting to the punditry and the East Coast,” Madrid went on, “but it still matters. Reality still matters. The performative nature that has dominated our discourse for 10 years in the Trump era is fading away.”
Your morning catch-up: A look at California’s political dysfunction, plus fraud in the state’s hospice industry and more big stories
Imagine, for a moment, if former Vice President Kamala Harris had jumped into the governor’s race, as contemplated. The contest, for all intents, would have ended then and there, save for months of airy speculation on which Democrat or Republican would make the November runoff en route to eventual defeat. That would have been boring.
In Harris’ absence, the sprawling field of candidates has been a good and healthy thing, yielding the most competitive California gubernatorial contest in a quarter century. Fears of a Democratic shutout in June’s top-two primary and a fluky Republican being elected — which were always overwrought — have faded dramatically. Even if they hadn’t, would it really be better for politicians in Sacramento and Washington to anoint the Democratic favorite and cut voters out of the equation?
(While we’re busting myths, another is the fanciful notion that the state party or Democratic grandees like Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Jerry or Willie Brown could have cleared the field with just a phone call or two.)
This wide-open fight for governor may not be boffo entertainment or dazzling to those looking in from the outside, but it’s absorbing nonetheless. It’s destined to be remembered as one of the most volatile and surprising political contests modern-day California has ever seen.
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 despite media dismissals of the race as dull and uninspiring, California’s gubernatorial contest represents the most compelling campaign in decades with substantive competition and well-qualified candidates with solid political experience and accomplishments.
According to the piece, the wide-open nature of the race is healthy for democratic participation and has yielded the most competitive gubernatorial contest in approximately 25 years, allowing voters meaningful choice rather than having a predetermined outcome.
The article contends that California voters prioritize real economic concerns—such as housing affordability, rising utility and grocery costs, and fuel expenses—over celebrity status and entertainment value, making substantive qualifications more important than star power.
The piece notes that the election could yield historic outcomes, including the possibility of California’s first female governor or its first Latino governor in more than 150 years, representing significant demographic milestones.
The article suggests the expansive field represents a meaningful shift in political power from the historically dominant San Francisco Bay Area to Southern California, reflecting broader changes in the state’s political landscape.
Different views on the topic
Observers point to structural challenges undermining claims of a compelling race, noting that no candidate has consolidated substantial voter support, with polling showing no contender breaking through the 20 percent threshold[1], creating what analysts describe as a “muddled” and “unsettled” landscape lacking clear direction[1].
Reports indicate that significant numbers of voters are only now tuning into the campaign as the June primary election approaches[2], suggesting the race has struggled to maintain sustained engagement or generate early momentum.
The exit of former frontrunner Eric Swalwell transformed the contest into what analysts characterize as a chaotic “free-for-all”[2] rather than an organized and orderly competition with predictable dynamics.
The field’s absence of celebrity personalities and marquee names has prevented it from generating the kind of political electricity and energy typically associated with genuinely compelling electoral contests that capture sustained public attention.
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.
