Votes are still being counted but the outcome of Tuesday’s primary two elections in California appears to be clear.
Despite the uptick in his performance, the prospect of a third-place finish for Tom Steyer is fading and the number of votes to be counted, suggesting that Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton will face off in November.
Given the huge Democratic advantage — both ideologically and in enrollment — the outcome of the gubernatorial race may seem predetermined. But it’s voters who decide elections, not omniscient columnists.
Two such, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria, cannot see the future. But they can try to make sense of what has just passed, starting with the first season which was a strange mixture of ennui and white knuckles.
Barabak: So Anita, how do you feel now that the election is over? Are you free? Giddy? Are you depressed?
Chabria: Tired, five months to go. And although it is true that none of us can see the future, it is not a long time to predict that in a situation where the Democrats are registered more than the Republicans, the next governor may be blue.
So while the first one was devastating and confusing, the general election will be very predictable – Becerra will lose, and he will have to try hard to do so.
But here’s what I’ll be looking for in the lead up to November: How far will Hilton go to use this time to her advantage? There are plenty of real issues worth discussing where the Republican-Democrat divide could provide a proper debate. What should we do about gas prices? What is the right balance between environmental management and housing?
But my fearis takes aways from me) Hilton will, with little chance of winning, increase his MAGA credentials.
This past week, we’ve seen him dive headfirst into voter fraud conspiracies, following President Trump’s lead. Hilton’s campaign is giving Trump the biggest platform for this false propaganda of the most lopsided election California has ever endured.
That’s bad for our nation and bad for democracy, and it’s troubling that we’ll likely be dealing with these lies — and that California could be used to destroy voting rights nationally — throughout the summer leading up to the midterms.
What will you be looking at?
Barabak: How Becerra is spending the next five months.
One thinks that he is smart enough not to take anything for granted. Which means he won’t be spending time between now and November 3 at a swank beach resort, sipping one of those colorful drinks from a tiny paper parasol while pondering his inaugural address.
So it will be interesting to see how Becerra campaigns and whether he uses the next few months to build his mandate and prepare California voters for the bumpy road ahead.
Becerra is smart enough, one would think, not to run like Mr. The Sky Is Falling and told voters, “Boy, oh, boy things are really going to go forward.” But the next governor will face some really tough challenges, including a budget deficit that will likely require both painful cuts and unpopular tax increases.
In addition, there are disasters that cannot be avoided, be it earthquakes, fires or floods, the latter of which may be worse this winter which may be the peak of El Niño. There is also the ongoing challenge of dealing with a president who treats California like a dog treats a fire extinguisher.
Finally, there are unknown but certain crises that the next ruler will face.
All of which makes you wonder why anyone would want this job — even though Steyer is desperate enough to burn his more than $215 million fortune in a bonfire.
Chabria: Steyer was shamed for being a self-funded billionaire, but what his support has shown is that there are a lot of voters who are tired of the status quo and want a governor with bright ideas.
California definitely faces a lot of problems, but we’re also historically a state that moves forward on difficult issues.
Universal health care and standing up for our climate in the face of a recession were two of Steyer’s biggest talking points, along with lobbying for business. Becerra now inherits those thorny issues if he wants to build a united Democratic base.
Becerra hasn’t given up on his vision for Golden State, as he points out. As much as it may benefit Hilton to focus on Trump in the coming months, the same may be true for Becerra.
Why get involved in dirty politics when you can run into opposing MAGA in a blue state? I fear the next few months will be more about Trump than California.
Barabak: That’s a generous way to look at the $teyer campaign.
Sure, he had a lot of ideas, but I think the promise of universal health care – a non-starter in politics – was cheap, not visionary leadership.
People with good ideas are in short supply. I only The reason anyone paid attention to Steyer, who has never served in any elected office, was the obscene amount of money he spent on his high-profile publicity tours. So I’m glad the voters didn’t reward his arrogance or buy his billionaire-turned-celebrity, “Amazing Grace” spiel. (“Once I was blind, but now I see.”)
And I’m glad the voters have shown – again – the governor’s office is not for sale.
I do agree, however, that Becerra should do more than cry MAGA! MAGA! MAGA! in the next five months, as if that talk is magic and will solve all our problems. That applies, by the way, to Democratic candidates everywhere.
That said, we should note that the race for governor has yet to be officially decided and Steyer has a theory of at least one of the top two.
What do you think about California’s long, much-mocked vote count? Is the criticism justified?
Chabria: First, we’ll have to agree to disagree. California is in a health care zone and even middle class Americans (not just Californians) can’t afford insurance or care.
Single payer may be a dream, but it’s my dream – for my children, for our community and for our state, because health care shouldn’t just be for the rich and that’s increasingly where we’re going. So any politician, including Steyer, who fights for inclusion instead of accepting exclusion will get my consideration.
And let’s be real – whether we’re self-funded or corporate-sponsored – our choices, to their detriment, are very much about money. My anger is because of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which took out the current mess and created a system where we need hundreds of millions somewhere, anywhere to enter our higher offices.
But back to the votes: Slow motion is not fraud. Slow isn’t 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 reorganization of the post office which has reduced our mail.
Also, it’s slow because most of our county election offices are understaffed and hungry. If you want it fast, you have to pay for it.
So keep your britches on people and don’t buy Trump’s (or Hilton’s) manufactured hype. All systems can be improved, but there are worse problems than slowness.
What is your opinion on the voting controversy?
Barabak: Here is another where we agree.
California is going out of its way to make voting easier, which I believe, is a very good thing. Kim Alexander of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, who has spent decades on the issue, suggested ways we could have both broader access and faster counting, starting with better funding for greatly expanded county election offices.
This long-term figure is something Gov. Gavin Newsom and an unexpected Democratic-controlled Legislature. Shame on them for not doing more to fix it.
Chabria: Any final thoughts?
Barabak: Just this. I’ve read a lot of sad pieces written about this boring, unworthy-of-the-Great-Golden-State field of gubernatorial candidates.
I, too, yearn for that perfect candidate who is strong yet flexible, old and wise yet fresh in her thinking, masculine but also feminine, smart but not too smart and larger than life but also completely relatable.
Maybe in 2030.
