California gubernatorial debate: who won and lost

Columnists weigh in on the candidates’ performances in Thursday night’s California gubernatorial debate, with particular focus on Becerra, Steyer, and Hilton.

Thursday night’s California gubernatorial debate, the sixth and final stop before votes are counted, left voters with more familiar lines than a clear sense of who can actually move the state forward.

On a 90-minute stage in San Francisco. the leading candidates traded barbs and policy prescriptions under the watch of co-moderators. including San Francisco Examiner editor-in-chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas.. The tone. as some commentators saw it. was marked by the kind of talking over one another that has become a hallmark of the modern race. and not the sort of crisp. yes-or-no clarity voters say they’re looking for.

In their assessments, Misryoum USA columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria all argued that the debate did little to break the deadlock or separate the contenders in a way that would decisively shift the race.

Arellano framed the evening as another reminder of how crowded and static the top tier has become.. He said none of the candidates has polled higher than “20-some percent. ” arguing that the field’s size has prevented any one contender from capturing the broader political mood in California.. For him. the debate did not deliver the kind of present-tense leadership that answers why people are staying. why they are leaving. or how the next governor would address what he called a “spiritual malaise.”

Instead, Arellano said, too many candidates seemed to lean backward.. He pointed to Antonio Villaraigosa’s closing remarks. built around “Dream with me. ” the slogan he used when he was Los Angeles mayor more than a decade ago.. He noted Xavier Becerra’s reliance on a record defined by earlier battles. including standing up to President Trump as California attorney general five years ago.. And he said Katie Porter’s approach felt like a callback to her earlier style in Congress. including her white notebook and a direct challenge to Becerra.

The Republicans, in Arellano’s view, were not exceptions.. Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton described a California shaped by what they depicted as feckless Democrats. pledging a return to an earlier era.. Arellano’s critique culminated in the argument that the race has become nostalgia-heavy rather than forward-looking. warning that “nostalgia” can be dangerous in California politics.. He referenced earlier ballot-driven controversies tied to past impulses, including Prop.. 13 and Prop.. 187.

The debate’s main practical winner, Arellano suggested, was not any candidate but the political consultants running the show. For Californians, he wrote, the danger is that they will end up choosing without a convincing path to improvement.

Barabak. looking at the same night from a different angle. brought in a familiar definition of insanity: repeating the same approach and expecting a different outcome.. He asked whether the debate audience represented a form of masochism or something more dutiful.. Either way. his point was that the candidates have all been in the spotlight for so long that their performances can feel like rehearsed versions of established roles.

He described Steyer as the boastful billionaire. Bianco as an angry avenger. Hilton as the chipper doomsayer. Mahan as the candidate trying to wedge himself into a conversation he did not originate. Porter as the left-wing tribune offering a progressive vision. and Villaraigosa as the political war horse.. In that dynamic, Becerra again became the focus of attacks, consistent with his status as the candidate to beat.

Barabak highlighted Becerra’s comment that rivals who criticize him are acting differently because he is leading in polls.. He said other candidates targeted Becerra’s work as state attorney general and as Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. including accusations that he is a shill for Big Oil.

Barabak also pointed to an attempt to tie Becerra to a scandal involving former aides who embezzled from a dormant campaign account. In that reference, he said Becerra responded that prosecutors in the case have described him as a victim, not a perpetrator or co-conspirator.

Still, Barabak concluded that the debate itself likely will not change much.. He argued that what matters more is what voters do between now and Election Day. and he described the top-two primary as a kind of self-fulfilling process: Democrats. he said. appear spooked by the possibility of their party being shut out in June’s primary and are preparing to vote late for whichever Democrat seems positioned to finish first.. In that atmosphere, Thursday night’s television performance, while not meaningless, risked being just another rerun.

Chabria offered the most direct evaluation of how the debate played on camera. calling it orderly and old-school. with candidates largely polite and the audience frequently scrolling on phones.. She said the candidates appeared low-energy, with jabs that were largely directed at Becerra, even as sparks were limited.

Her view of the contenders sharpened around the top tier. She said the top three people who can realistically win are Becerra, Steyer and Hilton, arguing that without a dramatic blow-up like the one associated with Eric Swalwell, the rest were unlikely to break through.

Chabria gave Porter credit for having her best performance to date, particularly in what she described as clear answers with policy detail. But she also said the timing felt late and may not be enough to move the numbers.

Becerra, in her telling, was subdued.. She said he seemed flat and repeatedly leaned on a line that he sued Trump more than a hundred times as attorney general during Trump’s first term.. She acknowledged that those suits produced court victories, but said the framing was not necessarily inspiring.. Chabria also pointed to Becerra’s difficult week. citing a reporter gaffe that went viral and a plea deal by a former aide in a case involving money misappropriated from a dormant campaign account.. She said it is unclear whether voters care about either issue. though she suggested that lingering impressions could create an opening for Steyer.

Steyer, according to Chabria, made forceful points that positioned him as a changemaker progressive, especially around shifting away from fossil fuels. But she argued his answers also included some convoluted moments that did not land with undecided voters.

Then, she zeroed in on a specific exchange involving Hilton and abortion policy.. Chabria said Hilton stated that if elected. he would allow California abortion providers to be extradited to states such as Louisiana to face criminal charges for mailing abortion medications.. She argued the position is not only bad for California but also risky for women across the country. who she said rely on states such as California for abortion access.

For Chabria, that exchange was disqualifying in a state where abortion rights remain protected.

California gubernatorial debate Xavier Becerra Katie Porter Steve Hilton Tom Steyer Chad Bianco Antonio Villaraigosa