The Democrats: Too Many Promises, Too Little Unity

Six Democrats are running for governor of California. All of them oppose Donald Trump. All of them want to lower the cost of living. All of them support expanding healthcare. All of them want to build more housing.

So what exactly separates them?

That is the question California’s Democratic voters are struggling to answer — and their inability to do so is the single greatest threat to Democratic governance in this state.

With the June 2nd primary weeks away, here is an honest, in-depth look at every major Democratic candidate — their records, their promises, and the questions they still have not answered.

The Fragmentation Problem

Before we look at individual candidates, let us state the obvious.

Six serious Democrats in a single primary is not a demonstration of party strength. It is a demonstration of party dysfunction.

Political analysts have noted that with Republicans largely united behind two candidates while Democrats split their vote six ways, the very real possibility exists that two Republicans advance to the November general election — locking Democrats out of the governor’s office entirely in one of the most Democratic states in America.

Every vote cast for a Democrat polling below 5% is potentially a wasted vote that could have gone to a stronger candidate. Every week that candidates spend attacking each other is a week they are not making the case against the Republicans.

California’s Democratic Party has urged candidates to consolidate. Most have refused.

Keep that in mind as you read about each candidate below.

Xavier Becerra — The Frontrunner With a Complicated Record

Xavier Becerra’s story is genuinely remarkable. The son of Mexican immigrants, he represented Los Angeles in Congress for over two decades, became the first Latino Attorney General in California history, and served as Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services — the first Latino in that role.

He is now tied with Steve Hilton at the top of the polls — a surge that was entirely driven by Eric Swalwell’s implosion rather than any particular breakthrough moment of his own.

Political analyst Mike Madrid put it bluntly: “When you see that big of an explosion of movement towards Becerra, and there is not an underlying, quantifiable polling reason or explanation for it, you have to ask yourself — is this a durable, sustainable voting bloc? Or is it going to go away just as fast as it came?”

That is exactly the right question.

His record at HHS deserves scrutiny:

While Becerra was praised for his defense of the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, his tenure was not without controversy. His department faced serious criticism over its handling of a record surge of unaccompanied migrant minors at the US-Mexico border. Some Biden administration officials accused Becerra of lacking urgency in his response. Critics argued that thousands of children were unaccounted for after being released by HHS — though former Biden officials refute that characterization.

At the most recent debate, moderators asked why Becerra — who served two terms as Democratic caucus chairman — never investigated rumors about Swalwell’s conduct toward women. His response: “Rumors are not facts, and the Democratic caucus is not a place that adjudicates those things.”

On policy specifics:

At one debate, Katie Porter directly challenged him: “Mr. Becerra, you have all these lovely plans, but there are never any numbers, any revenue plan, any details, anything that pushes on the status quo.” Becerra’s response: “That is very rich to hear from someone who has never had to actually run a government.”

Both candidates made fair points. Porter is right that his plans lack specific funding mechanisms. Becerra is right that governing requires more than having plans.

The corruption cloud:

Becerra’s former chief of staff Sean McCluskie — who served him for 20 years — was federally indicted as part of a scheme that allegedly siphoned $225,000 from Becerra’s campaign accounts over two years. The scheme allegedly involved funneling campaign money through Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff to benefit McCluskie. Becerra says he did not have a full understanding of the case until federal investigators approached him and it became public.

Becerra himself has not been charged with any wrongdoing. But the question that has followed him throughout this campaign is a reasonable one: how does a candidate who ran his own campaign for years not know that $225,000 was being stolen from his own account?

At the CNN debate Becerra insisted he was “a victim in the campaign fund case.” Steve Hilton was blunt in response: “My view is that it is a bit rich for Xavier to talk about following the law when he is mired personally in a corruption scandal.”

The question Becerra still has not answered:

Your surge in the polls came entirely from Swalwell’s exit — not from any breakthrough policy proposal or debate performance. What is the affirmative case for your candidacy beyond experience and electability?

Katie Porter — Falling From Frontrunner to Fifth Place

Six months ago, Katie Porter was considered the frontrunner for this race. Today she is polling at 8-9% and fighting for her political survival.

What happened?

Porter’s strengths are real and well documented. She is the only candidate refusing all corporate PAC money. She has a genuine record of holding corporations accountable — her whiteboard sessions grilling pharmaceutical executives and Wall Street bankers became some of the most watched moments in recent congressional history. She points to her tough questioning of Trump administration officials as proof of her ability to stand up to the president, and promises to “fortify” the state’s healthcare system.

Her policy platform includes cutting income taxes for middle-income earners, raising corporate taxes on large businesses, and supporting denser housing development near transit stations.

But her weaknesses are equally real.

She lost the 2024 Senate race badly — failing to advance past the primary in a year when Democrats needed every seat. A video surfaced during this campaign showing her loudly berating a staffer. And despite being arguably the best-known Democrat in the field, she simply has not been able to break through.

At one debate, clearly frustrated with the chaos around her, Porter declared: “This is worse than my teenagers at dinner.” It was a funny line — but it also captured something about her campaign. She is running as the adult in the room in a race that keeps pulling her into the mud.

The question Porter still has not answered:

After losing the 2024 Senate race and now falling to fifth place in this one, what specifically has changed in your approach that would allow you to win a statewide race in California?

Tom Steyer — The Progressive Billionaire Who Wants You to Forget His Past

We have covered Steyer’s funding sources and contradictions in detail in our Follow the Money post. But there is more to examine about his actual policy platform and his fitness to govern.

Steyer wants to build “one million homes you can afford” by changing laws to make it easier to build on surplus public lands. He wants to challenge the monopoly status of the state’s investor-owned utilities, lower electricity bills, expand preschool for children as young as three, and create a state-level single-payer healthcare system.

These are ambitious, worthy goals. But two questions hover over all of them.

First — how do you pay for it? California is running a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit for the fourth consecutive year. Steyer says he will raise $50 billion in new revenue by taxing corporations and the wealthy. That has been tried before in California with mixed results, and corporations have powerful lobbying operations specifically designed to prevent it.

Second — Steyer’s progressive credentials were directly challenged at the CNN debate when rivals pointed out that he had declared opposition to single-payer healthcare to gain an endorsement from the California Medical Association. Becerra meanwhile refused to endorse single-payer outright, saying he backs “Medicare for all” rather than single-payer specifically.

This is a distinction without a difference to most voters — but it illustrates how candidates in this race say whatever they need to say to whichever audience they are addressing.

The question Steyer still has not answered:

You have spent $133 million of your own money on this campaign. If you genuinely believe in the causes you are campaigning on — climate action, healthcare for all, housing affordability — why not spend that money directly on those causes rather than on political ads?

Antonio Villaraigosa — The Moderate Who Has Been Here Before

Antonio Villaraigosa has the most experience of any Democratic candidate in this race. Assembly Speaker. Los Angeles Mayor for eight years. Co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

He has also been here before — he ran for governor in 2018 and lost to Newsom.

He is one of the more moderate Democrats in the field — skeptical of the state’s climate goals, believing in using oil and gas as a “transition fuel,” wanting a moratorium on climate regulations, and promising to boost homebuyer assistance programs while creating a task force to ensure federal immigration agents adhere to state law.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass endorsed Villaraigosa, praising his work on issues from children’s health to the environment.

But his campaign has struggled to gain traction. He is polling at roughly 2% — a stunning position for the most experienced Democrat in the field. The Chevron donations we documented in our Follow the Money post have not helped his progressive credibility. And the story of Newsom giving him a $380,000 job, funded partly by special interests, raises legitimate questions about the relationships between California’s Democratic establishment and the candidates seeking to lead it.

At the CNN debate, some of the sharpest attacks on Becerra came from Villaraigosa — reflecting a long-standing rivalry between the two that dates back to their overlapping time representing Los Angeles. Personal rivalries do not make good governance.

The question Villaraigosa still has not answered:

You are the most experienced Democrat in this race and you are polling at 2%. What does that tell you — and what specifically would you do differently than you did in 2018?

Matt Mahan — Silicon Valley’s Pragmatist

Matt Mahan is the youngest and most energetic candidate in the Democratic field. At 43, he brings a different kind of energy to this race — and a genuinely impressive record in San Jose.

Mahan reduced unsheltered homelessness during his time as mayor and is promising to cut taxes on housing development and gas. He backed Proposition 36 — toughening penalties for theft and drug offenses — over his own party’s opposition, and voters approved it with 68%. He has integrated AI into San Jose city government in ways that have drawn national attention.

But Mahan’s vulnerabilities are significant.

He announced his candidacy for governor before finishing his first term as San Jose mayor — a pattern his own city’s newspaper editorial board called out six days before his announcement. His Silicon Valley billionaire backers — Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Palantir’s Joe Lonsdale and others — represent a world of interests that are not always aligned with working Californians.

At a recent debate, Mahan attacked Becerra directly for his record at HHS — saying he had a “mixed record” and bristling when Becerra pushed back by saying Mahan had “never had to actually run a government.” It was a revealing exchange — two candidates who both have legitimate points about the other’s limitations.

His most memorable debate line remains the one about high-speed rail: “It should not cost more to get to Modesto than it cost to get to the moon.” Sharp, funny, and exactly right.

The question Mahan still has not answered:

The billionaires funding your campaign are building AI data centers that are driving up electricity and water costs for every California family. How can you credibly claim to represent working Californians when your campaign is funded by the people driving up their bills?

Tony Thurmond — A Compelling Story, A Difficult Reality

Tony Thurmond’s personal story is one of the most remarkable in this race.

Orphaned at six when his mother died and his father never returned from Vietnam, Thurmond was raised by cousins he had never met in Philadelphia — growing up in poverty and relying on public assistance. He went on to become a social worker, then a state legislator, then the first Black State Superintendent of Public Instruction in California history.

His policy positions are the most progressive in the Democratic field — he supports a proposed one-time tax on the wealth of California billionaires to backfill federal cuts to Medi-Cal, and has promised to increase funding for dyslexia screening and tutoring.

He is also the only candidate who has directly called out what he sees as the Democratic establishment’s attempt to push candidates of color out of the race. When party officials urged low-polling candidates to drop out, Thurmond responded: “The party is essentially telling every candidate of color to drop out. This act does not reflect the Democratic Party of 2026.”

That is a legitimate and important point worth taking seriously.

But the math is brutal. He is polling at 2% with $62,000 in his campaign account and only a few weeks until the primary. The Democratic Party’s fear — that his continued presence in the race helps Republicans advance — is real and documented.

There is no easy answer here. Thurmond’s presence raises vital questions about whose voices get amplified in Democratic politics. But the practical reality of California’s top-two primary means that every vote he receives is a vote that could determine whether the general election is a choice between two candidates or a Democratic lockout.

The question Thurmond still has not answered:

If two Republicans advance to November because the Democratic vote was split — and your votes were the margin of difference — how will you reckon with that outcome?

The Elephant in the Room: What Have Democrats Actually Accomplished?

Here is the question that runs through every Democratic candidacy in this race — and that none of them have answered satisfactorily.

Democrats have controlled the California governor’s office for sixteen consecutive years. Democrats have held supermajority control of the state legislature. California has some of the most progressive policies in the nation on climate, healthcare access, and workers’ rights.

And yet California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when adjusted for cost of living. The highest housing costs. One of the worst homelessness crises in the developed world. A budget deficit for the fourth consecutive year. Gas prices over $6 a gallon.

Every Democratic candidate in this race has a version of the same answer: it would be even worse without us, and the Republicans would make it worse still.

That may be true. But it is not a vision. And California voters — who have given Democrats everything they asked for, year after year — deserve more than “it could be worse.”

And here is perhaps the most damning data point of this entire race:

A poll of California’s No Party Preference — independent — voters found that “None of the Above” was beating the entire Democratic field. Among independents, Bianco led at 26%, Hilton at 23.8%, and “None of the Above” at 22.3% — ahead of every single Democrat running.

In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by millions, independent voters are so uninspired by the Democratic field that they would rather vote for nobody than any of the candidates on offer.

That is not a polling footnote. That is a warning that California’s Democratic Party should take very seriously — regardless of who advances on June 2nd.

Our UnsilencedTruth Take

The Democratic field in this race is simultaneously impressive and deeply frustrating.

Impressive because it contains genuinely talented, experienced people who have spent their careers fighting for working Californians.

Frustrating because their collective inability to consolidate behind a single candidate — or even two — is handing Republicans an opening that should not exist in this state.

If forced to identify the candidates who most deserve serious consideration based purely on record and platform — Porter’s independence from corporate money and genuine consumer advocacy record, and Becerra’s depth of governing experience stand out. But both have significant vulnerabilities.

What we know for certain is this: the Democratic Party of California needs to do some serious soul-searching after this primary — regardless of who advances. A party that cannot unite behind a candidate in the most Democratic state in America has a problem that goes much deeper than any individual campaign.

Coming Next

The issues nobody is talking about — AI data centers, senior healthcare costs, and the questions every candidate is avoiding.

Then: primary results, analysis, and what it all means for California and the country.