May09

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

In Old California: Becerra Gets Poked in the Eye at Candidates' Debate

Time for some truth. Of all the stuff we have to read/track in order to create this site, there are three things that are far and away the most unpleasant. In third place are long speeches, particularly State of the Union addresses. SOTUs, regardless of party, tend to be very similar to each other, and tend to hit beats we already know plenty about. So, they are roughly an hour (or, in Donald Trump's case, 2 hours) of "nothing new."

In second place are candidates' debates, which suffer from the same problem. It's not too bad when it's a one-on-one, but when it's six or seven or eight people, all from the same party, all trying to stand out from the crowd, it's pretty unpleasant to watch. And when the number of people on stage climbs to 10 or 12, with each of them getting maybe 5 minutes' speaking time, then it's a real "What is the point of all this?"

And in first place are political conventions. Sometimes the Democrats' conventions aren't so bad, particularly if there is some excitement and a youthful vibe (as was the case in 2024). Other times, they're pretty dry. Republicans' conventions are pretty much always a bore, and it's far worse when it's a Trump convention. In general, the theme of the GOP conventions is "old white people shaking their fist at the clouds and shouting." For Trump conventions, it's "old white people, a few token minorities, and Kid Rock shaking their fist at the clouds and shouting."

All of this is to explain, in part, why we have not been watching the California gubernatorial debates. If we believed the debates were important to the election, which itself is certainly VERY important, then we'd put our big-boy pants on and suck it up. But we really don't believe they are important. They are not well publicized, and attract only a small audience. It is an audience that is not at all representative of the broader electorate. So, we just don't think it's worth the considerable time (and unpleasantness) involved. Watching and writing up a debate takes about 6 hours, and that largely means no other coverage that day, particularly when it is also the end of the school year. It just doesn't add up.

That said, it's not hard for us to figure out (and pass along) the main story of this week's debate. Now that Xavier Becerra is a real threat to finish in the top two, and thus to advance to the general election, the knives were out for him. In particular, because of California's wonky jungle-style primary, his main "rivals" are Tom Steyer (D) and Chad Bianco (R), who are jockeying with Becerra for that second-place finish. The other Democrats on stage also see Becerra as a threat, because they are aspiring to that #2 slot, as well. And, speaking of the wonky primary, frontrunner Steve Hilton (R) also has reason to target Becerra. Hilton's best and only hope of becoming a governor is that Bianco finishes in second, setting up a Republican vs. Republican general election. In that scenario, Hilton has Donald Trump's endorsement and Bianco does not, and that would likely be enough to push Hilton over the top. You would probably also see notes like this: "7,839,202 Californians voted in the election, and yet only 2,021,290 votes were cast in the governor's race."

Becerra's weaknesses, when it comes to being attacked, are... pretty substantive. While serving in state government, he had some responsibility for dealing with homelessness and with insurance companies fleeing the state. Those problems have been unsolvable by anyone of either party, at least so far, and Becerra didn't solve them either. Maybe not his fault, but that's politics. Becerra has also shifted positions on several key issues, like single-payer health care. The progressives, in particular, do not like that. Becerra is connected to Sean McCluskie, his former chief of staff, who has just been convicted of misusing campaign funds. And during his tenure at HHS, Becerra was partly responsible for implementing immigration policy. At the debate, he was accused of separating some children from their parents, something that does not go over well with the state's Latino voters (which is why it was the other Latino in the race, Antonio Villaraigosa, who brought it up). Anyhow, if you would like to read more, here are national, state and local reports talking about how Becerra was everyone's punching bag.

Let us also add this to the pile. While we did not watch the debate, reader C.H. in West Linn, OR, did. Here is C.H.'s report:

As an Oregonian, out of curiosity I watched the debate tonight with no dog in the fight and not a whole lot of knowledge about the candidates other than name recognition, such as Steyer and Porter. The debate is in its last minute but here's my rank and take before watching the pundits:

1. Matt Mahan: He won the night. Never heard of him until tonight.
2. Katie Porter: She gets second. I like her authenticity and her willingness to speak her mind.
3. Xavier Becerra: Milquetoast. Slippery politician.
4. Antonio Villaraigosa: Washed up has-been. No chance. Time to hang it up.
5. Tom Steyer: Billionaire. And uninspiring.
6. Steve Hilton: My English-born wife says an a**hole with an English accent has no chance in California.
7. Chad Bianco: The people of Riverside County should fear their lives with this guy as sheriff.

Thanks, C.H.! And note again that C.H. is an Oregonian who solely watched due to being a political junkie. Then see our point above about how the audience for these debates does not represent the electorate that will decide this election.

Becerra is also getting the "frontrunner" treatment from the media. The most notable example we saw was this piece from Politico, which is an absolutely brutal takedown of Becerra's time leading HHS, from (unnamed) Biden administration insiders. Remember the line from Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was asked to name an important contribution that VP Richard Nixon had made to his administration, and said, "If you give me a week, I might think of one"? Well, that is pretty much the tone and tenor of the Politico piece. We are not sure who is behind the piece; could just be a reporter looking to make his bones, or maybe the Steyer campaign, or maybe Becerra's enemies from his White House years, or maybe even the Democratic Party, if they think Steyer is a stronger candidate. In any event, it's rough.

There have been three new polls of the race since we last did a rundown. Here they are, from newest to oldest, including all of the seven candidates who qualified for the debate stage:

We pass along all three, to be comprehensive. However, we would not take that Impact Research poll all that seriously, if we were you. First, it was commissioned by the Mahan campaign. Second, there is no justification for excluding Bianco. On the whole, it remains clear that Hilton is going to advance to the final round, and that he will be joined by either Steyer or Becerra, but not Bianco. The problem with the Steyer-Becerra question is that the pollsters are clearly struggling to figure out what the non-Republican electorate will look like. So, the Republican candidates' numbers are pretty consistent, but the Democratic candidates' numbers are all over the place.

The debate was the last one before the primary election, and so we expect there will be a number of polls released this week, including one from Berkeley, and maybe one from USC/Dornsife. We'll be watching for them. (Z)