California primary heads to November, Becerra vs Hilton

Becerra vs – With votes still being tallied, California’s top-two primary is already pointing toward a November matchup between Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, while third-place hopes for Tom Steyer fade as the long count continues.

The ballot count in California is still not finished, but the direction of the governor’s race feels like it has locked in—early enough to make the rest of the summer feel like preparation for the real fight.

Tuesday’s top-two primary is still moving through the tally. yet the result is “pretty clear” in the way political life often becomes clear before it’s officially done: Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton are increasingly expected to face off in November. while hopes for Tom Steyer to finish in the top two appear to be slipping along with the shrinking pool of uncounted ballots.

For California politics, the setup is almost too familiar. The state’s Democratic edge—both in attitude and in voter registration—makes it easy to assume the outcome is preordained. The columnists arguing about it, at least, don’t pretend voters don’t matter. They just talk like people watching a runway through the fog. waiting to see what will change before the plane lands.

Anita Chabria came in tired, five months out from Nov. 3. She framed the primary as bruising and confusing. but insisted the general election will be much more predictable—“it’s Becerra’s to lose. ” in her view. Her focus for the months ahead was not only policy, but the kind of campaign Hilton is likely to run.

Chabria worries Hilton will chase personal ambition by leaning into culture-war politics rather than debating the issues Californians are already living with. She pointed to what she described as his dive into voter-fraud conspiracies over the past week. following President Trump’s lead. In her telling. Hilton’s campaign is giving Trump a platform for “false propaganda of rigged elections” that has been especially troubling in a state that could otherwise be a bulwark for voting rights.

Mark Z. Barabak took the question from the other end: what kind of governor Becerra becomes when the election is no longer the immediate deadline. He said the next five months won’t be about taking anything for granted—he suggested Becerra shouldn’t waste the time lounging while thinking about his inaugural address. Instead. Barabak said viewers of California politics should watch how Becerra campaigns. whether he uses the period to build a mandate. and how he prepares voters for a rough road ahead.

Barabak’s list of what the next governor inherits reads like a stack of threats that don’t care about campaign slogans. He cited a structural budget deficit that could demand painful cuts and unpopular tax increases. He also mentioned the “inevitable disasters” California can’t bargain with—earthquakes. fires. and floods—while pointing to the possibility that this winter’s floods could be intensified by what he described as an epic El Niño. And he described an ongoing challenge of governing with a president who. in his words. treats California like a dog treats a fire hydrant.

Between them, the exchange made one thing plain: if Hilton runs on Trump’s conspiracies, and Becerra runs on governing through chaos, the contrast may matter more than any single policy proposal.

Steyer became a different kind of symbol in their conversation. less about where he ends up on Tuesday night and more about what his spending and message represented. Chabria argued that while Steyer was criticized as a self-funded billionaire. the support he drew showed a “significant contingent of voters” who are tired of the status quo and want bold ideas. She pointed to Steyer’s major talking points—universal healthcare. standing up for California’s climate policy in the face of federal rollbacks. and standing up to corporate influence.

Barabak pushed back hard on the substance and the motivation. In his view, the universal healthcare pitch was cheap pandering and a political nonstarter. He said Steyer’s impact came less from persuasion than from the “obscene amount of money” he spent. framing it as a luxury-class ego trip. Barabak said Steyer burned through more than $215 million of his fortune during the campaign. and he expressed satisfaction that voters did not reward Steyer’s arrogance or buy what Barabak described as Steyer’s billionaire-turned-populist “Amazing Grace” spiel.

Still, the columnists both acknowledged a lingering detail that keeps the race from being fully closed: the governor’s contest had not been officially decided, and Steyer could still, at least theoretically, slip into the top two.

Where the conversation turned sharply human was in what the ballot count itself is doing to people—whether they see it as flawed or as careful.

Barabak and Chabria addressed California’s prolonged, much-derided long ballot count, and whether criticism of the process is warranted. Chabria rejected the idea that slow equals fraud, arguing that slow is not bad if it’s accurate. She said slow can allow for greater voter participation by supporting mail-in ballots and carefully checking all ballots for problems. She also pointed to the federal “mangling” of the post office as a factor that has slowed down mail. and she said slow happens because many county elections offices are understaffed and budget-starved.

Her view was blunt: if people want fast, “you’ve got to pay for it,” and she urged voters to “keep your britches on” instead of buying manufactured hype—whether from Trump or Hilton.

Barabak agreed that California makes voting easy. which he called a “very good thing.” He cited Kim Alexander of the non-partisan California Voter Foundation. who has spent decades working on election matters. saying Alexander suggested ways to have both wide access and a faster count. Barabak said Alexander’s ideas include better funding for the state’s over-extended county election offices, and he criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-run Legislature for failing to do more to address the prolonged count.

In the space between those points—voting access, staffing shortages, and a national political narrative built from distrust—the ballot controversy started to look less like a scandal and more like a test of how Americans interpret process.

Before the race is officially decided, California’s campaign season already seems to be settling into its next act: a November faceoff that could turn into an argument not just about budgets and disaster readiness, but about what kind of politics voters believe should lead them.

Chabria finished with a final note that sounded like a personal stake, not a strategy pitch. She said California is on a “healthcare cliff,” and that even middle-class Americans can’t afford insurance or care. She argued that she wants single-payer healthcare and framed it as something she thinks about for her kids. her community. and her state. She said she would support any politician who fights for inclusion rather than acceptance of exclusion.

Barabak ended with a different kind of impatience—his frustration at the stream of commentary about the gubernatorial field. which he described as “boring” and wholly unworthy of the “Great Golden State.” He said he shares the yearning for the perfect candidate: firm but flexible. old but youthful. masculine and also feminine. brilliant but not too smart. larger than life but also relatable. Then he offered his own joke about timing—maybe, he said, in 2030.

For now, though, voters are left with what Tuesday’s top-two primary appears to be delivering: Becerra and Hilton heading toward November, Steyer hanging on only in theory, and a long ballot count that—slow or suspicious depending on whom you ask—has already shaped the mood of the race.

California governor race top-two primary Xavier Becerra Steve Hilton Tom Steyer November election long ballot count mail-in ballots voter fraud conspiracies Kim Alexander California Voter Foundation Gavin Newsom