For the third time in as many weeks, the leading candidates for California governor met on the debate stage Tuesday night.
The latest installment was a two-hour session, hosted by CNN and live from Monterey Park. The debate marks the first time the candidates have appeared before a national audience and comes as mail ballots begin arriving at homes across the state.
Columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabuck and Anita Chabria took the full 120 minutes, absorbing every zinger — scripted and otherwise — and dutifully inspecting every parry and thrust. Here’s what they took away:
Arellano: Antonio Villaraigosa ultimately rose above his gubernatorial rivals. Is it too late?
I wrote down my thoughts about this debate while writing my next article Columna Stop paying attention to anything, only when issues like immigration and the failure of the Democratic Party to bail out me are the topic of discussion. The rest of the time, what the candidates said came across as a giant scream-fest straight from the studio of the late, great Wally George, with everyone playing it straight.
Chad Bianco got angry, Steve Hilton tried to hide his MAGA-ness with his British accent. Katie Porter scolded, Tom Steyer scolded Bernie. Xavier Becerra does his best impression of the old Bunsen character from “The Muppet Show.” Matt Mahan was just…there.
Do you know who looked the best? Antonio Villaraigosa.
Anyone who really knows the former L.A. mayor has always seen him as the Chicano Prince Hal, a guy who doesn’t take himself as seriously as he should. His infidelity after his tenure as mayor effectively ended his political career; His consulting for the nutritional supplement company Herbalife made Villaraigosa a laughing stock among many Latinos I know.
He has spent the last decade effectively embodying Marlon Brando’s famous quote in “On the Waterfront”: He could have been a contender. Even his gubernatorial race, which was announced before many of his opponents, has largely had a similar air to it – which is why Villaraigosa has received such low polling during most of the race that he was left out of many of the early debates.
But that hangdog Villaraigosa was nowhere to be seen tonight.
His words of wisdom were kept to a minimum. Most of the time he stayed within his time limit and did not interfere much. He attacked Hilton for refusing to acknowledge that President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and decriminalizing illegal immigrants.
Villaraigosa took a particularly hard line at his perennial foe Xavier Becerra on everything from his time as President Biden’s health secretary to his former staffer being accused of stealing millions of dollars from his campaign fund. (Becerra has not been accused of any wrongdoing.)
When CNN co-moderator Alex Michaelson asked Villaraigosa if he would cancel California’s much-maligned high-speed rail project, the candidate’s emphatic “no” rang like a LeBron James dunk. He lamented the wastefulness of this billion-dollar project, said he had revitalized L.A.’s subway to the sea, and spoke with an impassioned gravitas that Becerra could only dream of.
“When I make a mistake, I am accountable,” Villaraigosa said at the end of the debate. This seemed like a candidate who could win — and now he has a month to make a comeback worthy of his political mentor, the late, great Gloria Molina.
Four weeks to prove them wrong, Antonio.
Barack: It was a no hitter.
Not a surprising success. Not a game-changing moment. Neither candidate was so irresistibly attractive that he entered the race akimbo and stamped himself as the front-runner by far in a slowly strengthening contest.
So far, the candidates are plowing well.
For anyone who has watched each debate – and there may not have been a very large audience – it was all quite familiar.
What’s new, and what may be the attraction for those who have just arrived, is a sense that the race is finally taking a coherent shape, with Xavier Becerra unexpectedly emerging as the candidate to beat.
A month earlier, Eric Swalwell had been the leading contender in the dozens of contests and Becerra was an afterthought, urging him to step down for the sake of his dignity and the well-being of the Democratic Party. (Fears of a Democratic shutout in the June 2 primary have largely subsided.)
When Swalwell left the race, and vacated his congressional seat amid allegations of sexual harassment and other potentially illegal misconduct, it was widely assumed that most of his support would go to Steyer or Katie Porter, the two other major Democratic contenders.
But Becerra has clearly been the beneficiary and his new status became clear Tuesday night as he faced repeated attacks. He wasn’t particularly dazzling, but that wasn’t his appeal. It is his stability and seeming steadfastness in times of great upheaval and stress that became evident again.
With less than four weeks to go until Election Day — and voting already underway — time is running out for another dramatic change, as happened between Swalwell’s implosion in April and Becerra’s surge in May.
However, it seems as if little or nothing will change, with Becerra steadily gaining ground, Hilton consolidating GOP support and the rest of the field looking for something – or someone – to make a massive difference in the race once again.
Chabariya: I don’t know of any winners, but there was definitely the biggest loser in the debate: Chad Bianco. I think the Sheriff of Riverside County hasn’t tried for a moment to hide who he really is – a conspiracy-loving immigration fanatic with ties to an extremist group.
Bianco said he was a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right organization known for some of its members participating in the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He rejected theories of election fraud, even suggesting State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta may be involved. He clarified that undocumented people are breaking the law by being present in the state.
Maybe some MAGA voters will stick to that stance, but I’m guessing independents and more moderate Republicans like Steve Hilton will find Trump-backed Republicans even more attractive after Bianco’s fiery rant. Hilton might be sending his rival a thank-you note and a bottle of bubbly for that performance.
As far as winners are concerned, some Democrats had some moments. Former Rep. Katie Porter spoke with clarity and strength on issues including single-payer healthcare (she supports it) and immigrants to this state opposing Trump’s immigration policies.
But he also addressed the criticism of his bad temper so directly in a way that I think might have troubled him.
While her male competitors were going back and forth, taking digs at each other, Porter said that given all the “yelling” and “insults” on stage, she was surprised that “anyone even wanted to talk about my nature.” It’s a pushback they tried earlier in the week with a new ad that tried to make a punchline out of the criticism.
I get her point and I don’t think a male candidate would face the same scrutiny for yelling at a staffer as she has, but at the same time – what could be more offensive to voters than an angry woman? One who Complaints. That moment of resistance against the narrative may not reach voters the way it wants.
I agree with Gustavo that Villaraigosa had a good night, and Steyer had Bernie energy – which can be good.
Steyer was the most animated and direct in any debate, packing a few punches and making his points with clarity (he was much less awkward than in the past). He owns up to his far-left politics, and calls himself a “change-maker”.
Steyer is trailing Becerra in the polls, but Becerra’s attendance was again steady, but less than thrilling. To fed-up Democrats, Steyer may be looking better all the time.
