Two Opposite Opinions, Same Result
Our Gubernatorial race is "beneath" the expectations...
This morning, Mark Barabak in the Los Angeles Times wrote a piece essentially saying, what he has been for weeks now, that the race for Governor is going to be boring. Boring makes it intriguing. And, even if boring, he is totally fine with it. In fact, in his mind, the race is one which is a regression to the mean for California.
I am not sure I agree with the totality of what he is saying. I am not sure the options we have, while not performative, are up to the standards one would expect to lead the 4th largest economy in the world. With one breath, we like to talk about the “greatness of California,” and with another, we are talking about its “blandness,” which is not attracting the names with wattage we should expect. In fact, most are questioning “who are these people running,” and “do I want to vote for any of them?”
Conversely, in the Wall Street Journal, we have Alysia Finley, who writes about California consistently, saying the reason is California cannot turn out good candidates because they “have to check boxes.” I am not sure I agree with that one either. Eric Swalwell, the presumptive nominee before his implosion was not a “check the box” candidate as she was describing Becerra.
Both are provocative pieces from the perspective they talk about the fact California’s race for Governor is one of the weakest you can imagine.
Only 8 years ago, we had Antonio Villaraigosa, the first Latino Mayor in the modern era of Los Angeles versus Gavin Newsom, a politician out of central casting. Neither were slouches. Both led the largest cities in the State before Newsom went to be Jerry Brown’s Lt. Governor and presumptive next in line. Remember, Kamala Harris, the other big, young, name was appointed to Barbara Boxer’s Senate Seat. Who slid into her AG role? Xavier Becerra. Harris ended up being VP, Newsom Governor, and Antonio, well he did not fade like a shrinking violet.
Those were three names which could have been Governor and the traffic jam, particularly from the two San Franciscans could have been explosive, so they sorted it out (and there are no “Machinists” in California)? How quick the media forgets.
Fast forward to today?
The names are Becerra, Mahan, Porter, and Steyer.
None have the wattage of Newsom and his brash recognition of same sex marriages, nor Antonio being talked about for national prominence after his leadership in Los Angeles before his extra-marital affair was exposed. Moreover, Harris had to be part of the equation too in 2018. She was positioned in 2017 with the Senate Seat because Newsom decided to be Governor instead of seeking national prominence with a role in the Senate.
All three were deserving of the role of Governor as they had star wattage and capabilities (so much so that they wanted Harris to be reprised to come back to run for the seat this time round).
If we go back before Newsom, it was Jerry Brown, going for his second round as Governor of our State. Brown was a force in California politics, and he brought his own star wattage with him. He was Governor Moonbeam. He ran for President, and not like Steyer, he had to do it the old fashioned way- with other people’s money, not his own. He was no slouch.
You have to go back to Gray Davis for a “boring” Governor, but he had a long list of accomplishments in State Government and paid his dues to get to the “seat.” Pete Wilson had been Senator and Mayor of the Second Largest City in California. He also had Presidential aspirations, and they collided with the reality of the error of his Prop 187.
So, we are starting to go way back to begin to discuss when California did not have a major player in the seat. California was a very different place that many years ago, so much so, it is impossible to draw comparisons that far back to today.
It is why this election is so intriguing and frustrating at the same time.
Look who passed on it. Padilla. Harris. Even Rob Bonta (though he brought some serious considerations to the seat). Why? Padilla did not want to lose and show weakness for 2028? Harris- if she lost this one, what does that say? Bonta? Does he want to wait until 2032?
Were those candidates any better than what we have?
So, to Finley, I say, I get it, but I think you need to re-assess. Swalwell was not checking boxes, your points are that the D’s need to get some new blood and not promote for loyalty.
To Barabak, go back to those days of Feinstein, Boxer, the 1990s, when the Cranston seat was up and the musical chairs which went into it.
Things were very different. We had a Republican Governor, something which could not happen today. We are one party rule and we see the results.
There is a deep change which needs to be sussed out.
People are afraid to say something which might offend the Power Brokers of Democratic Politics in California. That fact was confirmed last week.
Challenges think they will be excommunicated from the Party if they go up against the status quo.
It is why Mahan or his people did not challenge too hard.
Steyer is fine- he is one and done.
Antonio does not care but he is a creature of the Party.
Porter, she is of the same.
Republicans are an after thought and really do not factor into California politics.
No one other than the media believes in the 2 Republicans in the general- and the media is not even California media anymore other than George Skelton.
The story has been transformed into the chance to get the jungle primary out of the equation, not because California Democrats are afraid of the 2 Rs, rather, they are afraid of the 2 D’s.
It is Prop 50 on steroids.
The Party is afraid it may have to go up against itself. One has to ask- why?
Sure they tell you it is the 2 R’s but we know it is not true.
The party knows the civil war is coming in 2028 when Trump is out of office. It will be between the left and center- Progressives versus the Establishment.
What happens when that is your general election? Get an R, win the primary, make it the two parties, and be done with it. The cost of the election is where an outcome can be engineered like Becerra this year. Otherwise, it can be a major problem in the future. Run with 35% of the voting pool instead of a greater number in a general election.
Do not buy the BS about the fact things have not gone more centrist when that was the intent of the jungle primary- the electoral politics of today are far more fluid than ever before. The rules of when they put the jungle primary in no longer hold.
California needs a reset, that much is true. It is creaking. The Machine controls too much.
Finley and Barabak begin to scratch around the surface, but they do not get to the heart of where things are wrong.
Remember Swalwell. Remember who backed him and why. Remember who they back now. Remember the 2 R’s hoax for what it is. Force honesty. Force authenticity.
As we embark on this June Primary, keep these things in mind as you read the pieces out there.
They get close but they do not do justice to the nuance of California. Ask why. a