California Governor

[Pete1111]

Why are these old farts running for California governor? 

No offense to you old farts out there, but there are already too many of them in government. 

Villaraigosa will be 74 at the start of the term.  Becerra and Steyer will soon be 70. 

Also I prefer not having a billionaire governor.  Why does Steyer want to govern California?  

I trust Katie Porter but the media has f*cked her over.

The last thing we need right now is a GOP executive running the state.  I hope the Dems muddle through.

 

[Suckrates]

Well since Bianco lost his job with The village People, he needs a job.....

Wazamatter,  you dont like the Gay cowboy ?   🤣

And Steyer knows how to play "cool guy"....  throw on a pair of white basketball sneakers with your $5000 suit !    

And yet, the Dems THINK this is a good group to "pass thru" to the public ?      They are FUCKED ....     Really, who ARE these yokels ?   

[Pete1111]

7 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Well since Bianco lost his job with The village People, he needs a job.....

Wazamatter,  you dont like the Gay cowboy ?   🤣

And Steyer knows how to play "cool guy"....  throw on a pair of white basketball sneakers with your $5000 suit !    

And yet, the Dems THINK this is a good group to "pass thru" to the public ?      They are FUCKED ....     Really, who ARE these yokels ?   

There's a new sheriff in town!  😆😆😆

Will he ride that horse around Sacramento?

[unicorn]

Well, these are the latest results, according to AI:

As of early May 2026, the California governor's race is highly competitive and fractured, with Republican Steve Hilton [15%] and Democrat Xavier Becerra [18%] tied for the lead in recent California Democratic Party polling. The race is wide open following term limits for Gov. Gavin Newsom, with a large, divided field of candidates and roughly 26% of voters still undecided. Key Candidates and Poll Standings (Approximate)Steve Hilton (R): 16% – 18%, Xavier Becerra (D): 10% – 18%, Tom Steyer (D): 12% – 15%, Chad Bianco (R): 10% – 14%, Katie Porter (D): 8% – 10%, Matt Mahan (D): 4% – 5%.

If I were to vote for my favorite, it'd be Matt Mahan, but California has a system in which the top two vote-getters face off, and it would be a disaster if it were a Bianco-Hilton face-off. Trump endorses Hilton and, Bianco is a complete nut-job. Out of fear of having a GOP vs GOP final election (although a Democrat could win as a write-in), I'll vote for Becerra. Steyer comes off as a complete sleazebag, Porter is abrasive, arrogant, and condescending. According to AI:
 

Key criticisms from her detractors include:

• Poor Temperament: Critics argue she has an "unhappy" and combative demeanor, highlighting incidents where she shouted at staffer or acted rudely in interviews.
• Abusive Management Style: She has faced accusations of being an "abusive" and "racist" boss, specifically in reports about her treatment of staff, according to a POLITICO article.
• "Arrogant" and "Condescending": Opponents argue that her "whiteboard" style is condescending and that she acts with a sense of moral or intellectual superiority, according to a National Review article and the Medium article.
• Self-Destructive/Weak Candidate: Some critics, such as former state controller Betty Yee, have labeled her a "weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California," particularly when facing pressure or difficult questioning.
• Political Missteps: Critics have described her as overambitious, pointing to her decision to run for the Senate instead of staying in the House as a move that let down her party

[RockyRoadTravel]

On 5/4/2026 at 5:12 PM, unicorn said:

Well, these are the latest results, according to AI:

As of early May 2026, the California governor's race is highly competitive and fractured, with Republican Steve Hilton [15%] and Democrat Xavier Becerra [18%] tied for the lead in recent California Democratic Party polling. The race is wide open following term limits for Gov. Gavin Newsom, with a large, divided field of candidates and roughly 26% of voters still undecided. Key Candidates and Poll Standings (Approximate)Steve Hilton (R): 16% – 18%, Xavier Becerra (D): 10% – 18%, Tom Steyer (D): 12% – 15%, Chad Bianco (R): 10% – 14%, Katie Porter (D): 8% – 10%, Matt Mahan (D): 4% – 5%.

If I were to vote for my favorite, it'd be Matt Mahan, but California has a system in which the top two vote-getters face off, and it would be a disaster if it were a Bianco-Hilton face-off. Trump endorses Hilton and, Bianco is a complete nut-job. Out of fear of having a GOP vs GOP final election (although a Democrat could win as a write-in), I'll vote for Becerra. Steyer comes off as a complete sleazebag, Porter is abrasive, arrogant, and condescending. According to AI:
 

Key criticisms from her detractors include:

• Poor Temperament: Critics argue she has an "unhappy" and combative demeanor, highlighting incidents where she shouted at staffer or acted rudely in interviews.
• Abusive Management Style: She has faced accusations of being an "abusive" and "racist" boss, specifically in reports about her treatment of staff, according to a POLITICO article.
• "Arrogant" and "Condescending": Opponents argue that her "whiteboard" style is condescending and that she acts with a sense of moral or intellectual superiority, according to a National Review article and the Medium article.
• Self-Destructive/Weak Candidate: Some critics, such as former state controller Betty Yee, have labeled her a "weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California," particularly when facing pressure or difficult questioning.
• Political Missteps: Critics have described her as overambitious, pointing to her decision to run for the Senate instead of staying in the House as a move that let down her party

It's looking like Tom Steyer is the best of the lot.  I'm hoping that a few of the Democrats put their personal ego to the side and withdraw soon.  

Tom Steyer is a successful business man so that should have the "conservatives" thrilled with him, although he hasn't bankrupted multiple business so that could disqualify him with the MAGA sheeple. 

[Pete1111]

I have my ballot.  Need to decide. 
Why can't we elect somebody young like Porter or Mahan.  They are younger than me. 
I want someone with energy and without baggage that the old farts carry.  

I'm not ageist, right?  Well eff it, maybe I am, but the political machine has not solved enough problems.  Let's get some new blood.

Steyer wants to deregulate electric utilities.  California tried that decades ago.  It's was a f*cked up idea that cost California huge $$$.

[Pete1111]

The Sacramento Bee likes Porter.

Yes, as @unicorn points out, she is known to be abusive and even nasty.  However, that does not bother me.

She will have our back.  She is smart.  

IMO the political machine and the business lobby are afraid of her.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/election-endorsements/article315568587.html

The embedded video gives her detailed answers to questions from The Bee.

 

[Suckrates]

9 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

I have my ballot.  Need to decide. 
Why can't we elect somebody young like Porter or Mahan.  They are younger than me. 
I want someone with energy and without baggage that the old farts carry.  

I'm not ageist, right?  Well eff it, maybe I am, but the political machine has not solved enough problems.  Let's get some new blood.

Steyer wants to deregulate electric utilities.  California tried that decades ago.  It's was a f*cked up idea that cost California huge $$$.

Steyer is just another billionaire....and Trumps cabinet is packed with billionaires, and we see how that is going...😡

These billionaires are disconnected from the reality of the average American.....    Billionaries are making a "killing" in Trumps golden Age.... everyone else is suffering.

So, what we Dont need is another Billionaire who doesnt know, or care about what WE need.....

[Suckrates]

2 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

The Sacramento Bee likes Porter.

Yes, as @unicorn points out, she is known to be abusive and even nasty.  However, that does not bother me.

She will have our back.  She is smart.  

IMO the political machine and the business lobby are afraid of her.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/election-endorsements/article315568587.html

The embedded video gives her detailed answers to questions from The Bee.

 

The media has done Porter dirty,  depicting her as a tough, evil tyrant.....    Well Trump is that and he still has 1/3 of the country in his corner.....

Porter seems Smart,  and not a person that can be pushed around.    She stands her ground, and is a good communicator....   these are things you WANT in your leaders, or at least you SHOULD want ! 

[stevenkesslar]

 

I'm underwhelmed.

I agree with what my Beloved Sister In Cock says about Katie Porter.  I have always been a fan of hers.  That said, she does have issues.  And the biggest one is that, at this point, she is essentially a spoiler.  If it were not a jungle primary I would probably vote for her anyway.  But I'd rather vote for someone who looks like they can get into what will likely be a two man race.  And that seems to be Becerra or Steyer against Hilton.  

Becerra has long been off my radar.  Politico just made him sound incompetent.

 

Quote

A second former Biden official shared that view, describing Becerra as having been “absent” on Covid responses. So did a third former Biden official, who called Biden’s selection of the former California attorney general, who brought no medical or public health background to the job, “an unfortunate choice.”

 

Oops!  I don't really know what to make of that.  It seems like, unlike our MAGA friends, Democrats are looking for a Joe Biden mainstream type who can just get the job done.  And who doesn't require rolling the dice.  But this seems like it requires rolling the dice.

 

So it is probably Steyer for me.  Although I don't like the billionaire thing, either.

 

13 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

Steyer wants to deregulate electric utilities.  California tried that decades ago.  It's was a f*cked up idea that cost California huge $$$.

 

Agreed! 

Oregon thanks California, though.  Enron did buy Portland General Electric in the late 90's.  And they did try to use that as a springboard for another scammy dereg effort.  I spent three years of my life building two statewide coalitions of leftie and environmental groups.  And the state law we spent several years winning was one of the biggest organizing victories of my life.  We stopped deregulation and created permanent state rate bases for renewables and low-income energy assistance.  It was one of the nice things about Oregon when its progressive heyday was just starting.  Enron (and dereg) did not go into the shitter until 2000.  But by 1999 you could smell the stench.  It was easy to fight Texas fat cats in Oregon.

The other piece of good news is we get Gavin Newsom as a competent and popular ex-Guv who may prove to be a good and electable Presidential candidate.  We'll see.

[RockyRoadTravel]

On 5/7/2026 at 10:11 AM, stevenkesslar said:

 

I'm underwhelmed.

I agree with what my Beloved Sister In Cock says about Katie Porter.  I have always been a fan of hers.  That said, she does have issues.  And the biggest one is that, at this point, she is essentially a spoiler.  If it were not a jungle primary I would probably vote for her anyway.  But I'd rather vote for someone who looks like they can get into what will likely be a two man race.  And that seems to be Becerra or Steyer against Hilton.  

Becerra has long been off my radar.  Politico just made him sound incompetent.

 

 

Oops!  I don't really know what to make of that.  It seems like, unlike our MAGA friends, Democrats are looking for a Joe Biden mainstream type who can just get the job done.  And who doesn't require rolling the dice.  But this seems like it requires rolling the dice.

 

So it is probably Steyer for me.  Although I don't like the billionaire thing, either.

 

 

Agreed! 

Oregon thanks California, though.  Enron did buy Portland General Electric in the late 90's.  And they did try to use that as a springboard for another scammy de-reg effort.  I spent three years of my life building two statewide coalitions of leftie and environmental groups.  And the state law we spent several years winning was one of the biggest organizing victories of my life.  We stopped deregulation and created permanent state rate bases for renewables and low-income energy assistance.  It was one of the nice things about Oregon when its progressive heyday was just starting.  Enron (and de-reg) did not go into the shitter until 2000.  But by 1999 you could smell the stench.  It was easy to fight Texas fat cats in Oregon.

The other piece of good news is we get Gavin Newsom as a competent and popular ex-Gov who may prove to be a good and electable Presidential candidate.  We'll see.

As the biggest and economically most powerful State in the nation the California governorship race needs to be an energizing and exciting race for the Democrats to add to their overall vibe of inevitable wave of success with the 2026 mid-terms. People like voting for the winning team. Momentum is important. The race does not need to be a  OMG are there so many candidates that they might let the two Repos sneak into the November race. 

What is the upside of a "jungle" primary?  I don't get it myself. In an overwhelming Democratic leaning State like California, how does it help them to have two Democrats on the ballot for Governor in November?  Doesn't that just lower the anticipation, lower the turn out, and impact the down ballot races?  Or is the thought that if there is no Repo on the November ballot, then Repo turn-out goes down?  Just thinking out loud here.   

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

 

What is the upside of a "jungle" primary?  I don't get it myself. In an overwhelming Democratic leaning State like California, how does it help them to have two Democrats on the ballot for Governor in November?  Doesn't that just lower the anticipation, lower the turn out, and impact the down ballot races?  Or is the thought that if there is no Repo on the November ballot, then Repo turn-out goes down?  Just thinking out loud here.   

I was just thinking about how things that made sense a decade or two ago, and still do in my mind, are now wildly out of sync with Trump era bloodthirsty partisanship.

Schwarzenegger championed the jungle primary.  And it won on the ballot in 2010 with 53 % of the vote.  Both political parties opposed it. 

The idea made sense if you view politics the way leaders like Arnie - who I deeply admire - did.  Moderation is good.  Compromise is good.  Bipartisanship is good.  So I think the idea was that instead of having highly partisan primaries where the most extreme elements of both parties nominate very partisan people, the jungle primary elects people who move to the middle.

This all belongs in a world where we don't have partisan gerrymandering.  It belongs in a world where Maine elects moderate Republicans, and North Dakota elects moderate Democrats.  There was just an article in Politico about how former Massachusetts Guv Mitt Romney hosted a political fundraiser in Utah for Susan Collins.  And how they are part of a dying breed of Senators of both parties who tend to want to meet in the middle.  The article pointed out how most of these Senators retired or were voted out.  Republican Cassidy is a doomed man, probably.   So is Susan Collins, maybe.  All those Indiana Republicans who pushed back against Trump on gerrymandering just lost.  Times have changed.

What is clearly very popular today is balls to the wall partisanship. 

And I'm there.  I was part of the 53 % that was for "meet in the middle" primaries in 2010.  And this year I was part of the much bigger majority that basically said, "Fuck that shit.  Trump is an animal.  And we'll fight the son of a bitch every way we can."

Barely related thought.  At some point I decided it may have been better for America and the world if Mitt Romney won in 2012.  It would have been sad at the time.  Particularly because Obama was our first African American leader.  Several Black intellectuals wrote at the time that America was less racist for not only having elected Obama, but also for having re-elected him - warts and all.  That said, we paid a price, as we always we do in politics when we get what we want.  The GOP clearly said "fuck that shit" about Romney-style bipartisanship.  No more Mr. Nice Guy.  They found the most partisan asshole they could find:  Donald Trump, aka King Graft.  He thrives at divide and conquer.  Especially if he can lie, rape, and steal.

I think the better angels lost.  I was most active in politics in my 20's and 30's.  And despite being a liberal Democrat who worked on and won some very progressive things that no one thought we could win, it worked precisely because there were Republicans who would compromise.   I miss that world.