-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- California’s top-two primary all but sets up a November showdown between Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton.
- Hilton is already diving into MAGA rhetoric and baseless voter-fraud claims, threatening to turn a long-shot campaign into a megaphone undermining California’s election system and democracy nationwide.
- With Tom Steyer fading and voters restless, Becerra must use the next five months to articulate a governing vision on deficits, disasters and healthcare, not just run against Trump.
The votes are still being tallied but the result of Tuesday’s top-two primary election in California seems pretty clear.
Despite an uptick in his performance, hopes for third-place finisher Tom Steyer are fading along with the number of uncounted ballots, suggesting Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton will face off in November.
Given the overwhelming Democratic advantage — both attitudinally and in registration — the outcome of the governor’s race might seem preordained. But it’s voters who decide elections, not know-it-all columnists.
Two of that breed, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria, can’t see into the future. But they can try to make sense of what just passed, starting with a primary season that was a strange mix of ennui and white knuckles.
Barabak: So Anita, now that the election is over how are you feeling? Relieved? Giddy? Depressed?
Chabria: No, Mr. Hilton, our elections are not ‘a joke.’ It’s time for you to stand up to Trump
President Trump is falsely claiming that California’s primary vote is rigged. Republican Steve Hilton needs to stand up for the state and its elections, which are free and fair.
Chabria: Tired, with five months to go. And while it’s true neither of us can see into the future, it’s not too much of a long shot to predict that in a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the next governor will likely be blue.
So while the primary was bruising and confusing, the general election will be much more predictable — it’s Becerra’s to lose, and he’d have to try really hard to do that.
But here’s what I’ll be looking for in the lead up to November: How far will Hilton go to capitalize on this moment for personal gain? There are plenty of real issues to be discussed where the Republican-Democrat divide could offer worthy debate. What should we do about gas prices? What is the right balance between environmental regulation and building housing?
But my fear is, with little chance of winning, Hilton will instead focus on boosting his MAGA credentials.
In the past week, we’ve seen him dive headfirst into voter-fraud conspiracies, following the lead of President Trump. Hilton’s campaign is providing Trump with the biggest platform for this false propaganda of rigged elections that California has ever endured.
That is bad for our state and bad for democracy, and it’s troubling that we will likely be subjected to these lies — and that California could be used to further erode voting rights nationally — for the entire summer leading up to the midterms.
What will you be keeping an eye on?
Barabak: How Becerra spends the next five months.
One presumes he’s smart enough not to take anything for granted. Meaning he won’t spend the time between now and Nov. 3 at some swank beach resort, sipping one of those colorful cocktails with a little paper parasol while musing over his inaugural address.
So it will be interesting to see how Becerra campaigns and whether he uses the next several months to build a mandate and also to prepare California voters for the rough road ahead.
Becerra is smart enough, one would think, not to run as Mr. Sky Is Falling and tell voters, “Boy, oh, boy things are really gonna suck going forward.” But the next governor is going to face some really tough challenges, including a structural budget deficit that’s probably going to require both painful cuts and unpopular tax hikes.
On top of that, there are the inevitable disasters, be they earthquake, fire or flood, the latter quite possibly exacerbated this winter by what may be an epic El Niño. There’s also the continued challenge of dealing with a president who treats California the way a dog regards a fire hydrant.
Finally, there’s the unknowable but certain catastrophes the next governor will face.
All of it makes you wonder why anyone would want the job — though Steyer panted after it enough to burn through more than $215 million of his fortune in a bonfire of vanity.
Chabria: Steyer was bashed for being a self-funded billionaire, but what his support showed is that there is a significant contingent of voters who are tired of the status quo and want a governor with bold ideas.
California definitely faces many problems, but we are also historically a state that pushes forward on hard issues.
Universal healthcare and standing our climate ground in the face of federal rollbacks were two of Steyer’s big talking points, along with standing up to corporate influence. Becerra now inherits those thorny problems if he wants to form a more cohesive Democratic base.
Becerra hasn’t yet offered up his vision of the Golden State, as you point out. As much as it may benefit Hilton to focus on Trump in coming months, the same could be true for Becerra.
Why get into messy policy when you can run on opposing MAGA in a very blue state? I fear the next few months will be more about Trump than California.
Barabak: That’s a charitable way to look at $teyer’s campaign.
Sure, he had plenty of ideas, though I think the promise of delivering universal healthcare — a political nonstarter — was cheap pandering, not visionary leadership.
There’s no shortage of people with good ideas. The only reason anyone paid attention to Steyer, who’s never served in any elected office, was the obscene amount of money he spent on his luxury-class ego trip. So it pleases me voters didn’t reward his arrogance or buy his billionaire-turned-populist, “Amazing Grace” spiel. (“I once was blind, but now I see.”)
And I’m gladder still that voters showed — once again — the governor’s office is not for sale.
I do agree, however, that Becerra should do more than just cry MAGA! MAGA! MAGA! for the next five months, as if that incantation is magic and will solve all our problems. That applies, by the way, to Democratic candidates everywhere.
All of that said, we should note the governor’s race has yet to be officially decided and Steyer still has at least a theoretical possibility of slipping into the top two.
What do you think about California’s prolonged, much-derided long ballot count? Is the criticism warranted?
Chabria: First, we’ll have to agree to disagree. California is on a healthcare cliff and even middle-class Americans (not just Californians) can’t afford either insurance or care.
Single-payer may be a dream, but it’s my dream — for my kids, for my community and for my state, because healthcare shouldn’t be just for the rich and that is increasingly the direction we are going. So any politician, Steyer included, who fights for inclusion rather than accepting exclusion will get my consideration.
And let’s be real — self-funded or corporate-funded — our elections are, to their detriment, too much about money. My outrage is for the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which unleashed the current no-limits mess and created a system in which it requires hundreds of millions from somewhere, anywhere to run for our highest offices.
But back to ballots: Slow is not fraud. Slow is not bad if it’s accurate. Slow allows for greater voter participation by allowing mail-in ballots, and carefully checking all ballots for problems. Slow takes into account the federal mangling of the post office that has, yes, slowed down our mail.
And, slow happens because most of our county elections offices are understaffed and budget-starved. If you want fast, you’ve got to pay for it.
So keep your britches on people and don’t buy Trump’s (or Hilton’s) manufactured hype. Every system can be improved, but there’s far worse problems than slow.
What’s your take on the ballot controversy?
Barabak: Here’s one where we agree.
California goes out of its way to make it easy to vote, which, I believe, is a very good thing. Kim Alexander of the non-partisan California Voter Foundation, who’s spent decades on the matter, has suggested ways we can have both wide access and a faster count, starting with better funding of the state’s over-extended county election offices.
This prolonged count is something Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-run Legislature could have anticipated. Shame on them for not doing more to address it.
Chabria: Any final thoughts?
Barabak: Just this. I’ve read the many plaintive pieces written about this boring, wholly-unworthy-of-the-Great-Golden-State field of gubernatorial candidates.
I, too, yearn for that perfect candidate who is firm but flexible, old and wise but youthful in his or her thinking, masculine but also feminine, brilliant but not too smart and larger than life but also totally relatable.
Maybe in 2030.
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 column argues that, given California’s overwhelming Democratic registration advantage and political lean, the governor’s race is effectively Xavier Becerra’s to lose, with Steve Hilton (and, at least theoretically, Tom Steyer) competing for a distant chance at the second spot in the top-two system.[1][2]
It contends that Hilton is unlikely to win and therefore is more likely to use the campaign to burnish MAGA credentials than to seriously contest the race, pointing to Hilton’s embrace of voter-fraud conspiracies and alignment with Donald Trump’s false narrative of “rigged” elections as dangerous for California and for democracy more broadly.
The piece suggests that instead of leaning only on partisan advantage, Becerra should use the next five months to campaign actively, build a governing mandate, and prepare Californians for difficult realities ahead, including a structural budget deficit that could require unpopular cuts and tax increases, as well as inevitable disasters such as fires, floods, or earthquakes and ongoing conflict with a hostile president in Washington.
In assessing Tom Steyer’s role, one columnist sharply criticizes the billionaire’s self-funded campaign as a “bonfire of vanity,” arguing that pledging universal healthcare in a state context is political fantasy and cheap pandering rather than serious leadership, and celebrating that voters did not, in this view, allow the governorship to be “bought.”
In contrast, the other columnist argues that Steyer’s support reveals a sizable bloc of Californians disillusioned with the status quo and hungry for bold ideas, citing his emphasis on universal healthcare, climate leadership in defiance of federal rollbacks, and resistance to corporate influence as evidence that ambitious progressive agendas resonate with many voters.
The dialogue presents a clear split over single-payer healthcare: one side dismisses California-only universal coverage as a political nonstarter, while the other describes single-payer as a personal and civic aspiration amid a “healthcare cliff,” where even middle-class families struggle to afford insurance and care, and praises any politician who fights for inclusion instead of accepting an increasingly exclusionary system.
Both columnists are critical of the outsized role of money in politics, but the piece especially highlights anger at the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision for creating a “no-limits” environment in which running for top offices routinely requires hundreds of millions of dollars—whether from self-funding billionaires or corporate-backed donors—leaving voters with campaigns dominated by big money either way.
On California’s slow ballot counting, the column strongly defends the state’s system: it stresses that slow does not equal fraudulent, arguing that longer timelines are a tradeoff for broad voter participation through mail-in ballots, thorough checks for ballot problems, and the realities of a strained postal system and underfunded county election offices.[1][4]
At the same time, the conversation notes that while expanded access is good, state leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Legislature should have anticipated voter frustration with prolonged counts and better funded local election offices so California could maintain wide access while producing faster results.
The piece worries that both campaigns—but particularly Becerra’s, in such a blue state—will find it easier to run against Trump and MAGA than to grapple with “messy policy,” and cautions Democrats against believing that simply shouting opposition to MAGA is enough to solve California’s problems or to sustain voter engagement.
Finally, the column reflects on broader voter dissatisfaction, acknowledging complaints that the field is dull and “unworthy” of California’s stature, and wryly fantasizes about an impossible “perfect” candidate who is simultaneously firm and flexible, youthful and seasoned, relatable yet larger-than-life—underscoring the gap between real-world choices and idealized leadership.
Different views on the topic
In contrast to the column’s view that the November result is nearly preordained, some analysts and political handicappers have framed the race as more fluid, noting Hilton’s early lead before later returns pushed Becerra ahead and emphasizing that concerns over crime, homelessness, and affordability could still give a Republican an opening if Democratic turnout softens or economic anxiety deepens.[1][2][5]
While the column centers Hilton’s promotion of voter-fraud theories, supporters and some Republican strategists argue that focusing on election rhetoric downplays the campaign’s emphasis on bread-and-butter issues—such as gas prices, cost of living, public safety, and frustration with Democratic one-party rule—which they present as the core of a legitimate policy debate rather than simply a bid to elevate MAGA branding.
Opposing the portrayal of Steyer’s bid as overwhelmingly a vanity project, many climate advocates and progressive organizers have credited Steyer with putting climate change, fossil-fuel divestment, and expansive healthcare reform at the center of the governor’s race, contending that his spending broadened the conversation and helped mobilize younger and more issue-focused voters; local coverage that highlighted Steyer’s “strong” finish for a first-time candidate echoes this more favorable framing.[3]
Where the column splits on single-payer healthcare, numerous budget analysts, health-policy experts, and moderate Democrats have stressed that a California-only single-payer system would likely require enormous tax increases and complex federal waivers, arguing that pushing such a plan in a statewide race risks overpromising and underdelivering; they tend to favor incremental expansions of coverage and cost controls over sweeping state-run systems, and see universal-care pledges like Steyer’s as politically and fiscally unsustainable.
On ballot counting, critics of California’s current system—including some Republican officials and election-integrity advocates—argue that weeks-long tallies erode public confidence and provide fertile ground for conspiracy theories, regardless of the underlying accuracy; they have pushed for reforms such as stricter mail-ballot deadlines, limits on ballot collection practices, and more robust real-time reporting to deliver faster, clearer outcomes.[1][4]
Some good-government groups and local election administrators, while also rejecting fraud claims, contend that the state should move beyond simply defending slow counts and make structural changes: they advocate earlier processing of mail ballots, guaranteed funding for county offices, and uniform reporting schedules so that close races do not remain unresolved for weeks, a stance that places more urgency on reform than the column’s “keep your britches on” tone.
In response to the column’s broad condemnation of big money in politics, defenders of current campaign-finance rules—including many libertarian-leaning legal scholars and some political practitioners—argue that large independent expenditures and self-funded campaigns are an important form of political speech that can help challengers compete with entrenched party machines and incumbents, a view that tracks the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Citizens United and subsequent decisions.
Finally, whereas the column characterizes the field as boring and “wholly unworthy” of California, other observers have portrayed Becerra’s rise as a historic and energizing moment: CalMatters, for example, has described his candidacy as a “breakthrough” that would make Becerra the first Latino elected governor in more than a century and has highlighted the symbolism of his trajectory for representation in a majority-minority state.[2]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
