In the recent CNN debate, Democrats Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer found themselves defending their positions as they emerged as frontrunners in California’s governor race—following the removal of Eric Swalwell.
The debate saw both Republican and Democratic contenders attacking Becerra and Steyer while vying for favorable spots in the “jungle primary,” where only two candidates, regardless of party, will move forward.
The competition felt almost balanced, though Katie Porter, who initially performed well, questioned her own temperament and ended up making some missteps.
At one point, the spotlight shifted to Chad Bianco, who had a brief moment of attention.
Steve Hilton adopted a quirky demeanor, smiling as he presented his novel policies. Antonio Villaraigosa seemed quite desperate as he aggressively challenged the leading figures. Meanwhile, Matt Mahan tried to position himself as a moderate between the two factions.
Interestingly, Hilton and Bianco maintained a friendly rapport, refraining from direct attacks against each other. They likely recognize that their chances to secure the top two spots depend on mutual support.
If the Democrats can consolidate around one strong candidate, it might lessen the chances for others. In the perceived showdown between Becerra and Steyer, Becerra came out ahead. Yet, support among Democrats remains weak, leaving an opening for the two Republican candidates.
Xavier Becerra: A- The former Health and Human Services Secretary once again defended the state’s high gas tax—an unpopular stance. Nevertheless, he maintained composure and dignity, emphasizing his legal battles against Trump. Though he managed to counter some of the attacks, he struggled with the corruption scandal brought up later in the discussion.
Chad Bianco: B+ The sheriff showcased a strong performance, but he faced scrutiny from Villaraigosa for being associated with the “Oath Keepers.” While the specifics may escape some voters, it sparked doubts about far-right affiliations. He leaned on his law enforcement experience to navigate the criticism calmly.
Steve Hilton: B Hilton delivered a solid performance, but had difficulty addressing questions about his ties to Trump, especially concerning the 2020 election and his stance on deportation policies. He seemed a bit hesitant when he should have been more direct. Although he launched a noteworthy attack on Becerra, it may have come too late to shift the debate’s dynamic.
Tom Steyer: B- This marked Steyer’s most competent performance yet, which, admittedly, isn’t saying a lot. He faced a barrage of attacks during the first half of the debate. Still, he has a tendency to come across as somewhat farcical, trying to convince the audience that his financial backing isn’t merely buying influence. He also criticized the billionaire tax, labeling it insufficient.
Matt Mahan: C The mayor of San Jose should perhaps rethink his campaign strategy. His continued attempts at compromise seemed overly complicated. His critiques of other candidates often fell flat, leaving him appearing youthful and perhaps inexperienced, despite an impressive record. He also felt it necessary to clarify that he did not intend to downsize the government.
Antonio Villaraigosa: D Villaraigosa came off as desperate, targeting the frontrunners without clarifying his own positions or identity. He attacked Hilton but also referenced Hilton’s accusations against Becerra regarding corruption. It was puzzling that Tony Salmond did not accept the CNN debate invitation, given he was present at the event. Villaraigosa’s relevance in the race remains uncertain.
Katie Porter: D- Porter delivered a disappointing performance for someone expected to do better. She highlighted what voters disliked about her—her temperament—and briefly resorted to inappropriate language. At times, her facial expressions were odd (she and Steyer might’ve appeared amusing if viewed without sound). Though lively, her demeanor did not resonate positively.
Moderator: B Overall, the moderator effectively facilitated candidate interactions. Some questions specifically addressed candidates, which felt justified. However, Caitlan Collins posed an outlandish question about whether California should imprison Trump officials concerning immigration enforcement, an issue rife with constitutional concerns.
Nonetheless, she and Elex Michaelson successfully steered a vibrant discussion.
