Steyer’s attack ads on Becerra seem to be having little effect on the polls, Steyer is now 2.5 points behind Becerra. I hope someone somewhere is taking note on the relative effectiveness of poisonous attack ads vs. positive ads about one’s own candidacy, so maybe in the future we can have fewer of the former. Another one of my little dreams.
There are also attack ads against Steyer, not openly funded by another candidate but by independent groups. Steyer says all these ads come from “Big Oil, utilities and other corporate interests.” In my opinion, though, the sheer volume of Steyer’s ads just fuels the narrative that he is trying to buy the governorship, which tends to put people off no matter how genuinely progressive his motives might be.
It is less than 2 weeks until the primary, and I have to say I can’t wait for these political ads to stop.
I’m absolutely not voting for anyone Republican. And also not Villaraigosa, former mayor of L.A. Too slimy.
I really prefer not voting for billionaire Steyer. He doesn’t need political power to effect change. He needs to use his money.
I’d prefer Porter, but she’s faded fast in the polling. Becerra is acceptable, so 90% likely I’ll vote for him.
Interestingly, Robert Reich, long time secretary for multiple presidents, and California voter, is endorsing Steyer. Not convincing to me, but provided for others.
His key point:
You may be thinking: a billionaire? Hear me out. Steyer is the only candidate with a plan to tax the wealthy and corporations to invest in public services.
Yeah, not a huge fan or anything. All thing being equal I’d probably lean towards Mahan. But unfortunately this one requires a strategic vote and only Steyer and Becerra are really viable options. Of the two I’d probably slightly prefer the bland empty suit to the never-held-office fire-brand fly-by-night billionaire, even if the latter does skew more progressive. If Steyer were actually leading, I might flip a coin for him. But pragmatically Becerra is probably the safer bet simply because he is ahead.
Not enthused. But then I never am and Hilton and Bianco aren’t acceptable. I might consider voting for a non-social-conservative never-Trump Republican for governor under the exact right set of circumstances, but they aren’t that.
It’s not all that unusual for people to spend less on a campaign and win anyway. That to me is one of the few bits of democracy that still works in this country, IMHO.
Plus, with the fragmentation of the media landscape, once a campaign spends some amount of money on advertising, additional funding doesn’t actually reach more voters.
For example, I haven’t seen any video ads for gubernatorial candidates, because I don’t watch any video media with advertisements. Nor heard any on audio for the same reason. The only ads I’ve seen are mailed to me and only briefly glanced at before being tossed.
I’m certainly in the minority here, but my vote counts just the same.
Same with me. I don’t watch commercial tv or listen to commercial radio. I have YouTube premium without ads. Any ads on Facebook I just scroll by without noticing and any flyers in the mail get thrown out without a glance.
As Xavier Becerra campaigns for California governor on his long record of government service, Democratic insiders have wondered if he will receive a late campaign endorsement from his last boss, former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The answer appears to be no.
Mr. Biden recently told Ron Klain, Mr. Biden’s former chief of staff, that he would not make an endorsement in the race, Mr. Klain said.
Joe Biden should endorse Kamala Harris for the race. Maybe that would remind Democrats how they screw up elections, and a couple of the Democratic candidates can drop out and endorse the frontrunner.
And it works pretty well for him, because Republicans understand the power of endorsement and Democrats apparently don’t and would seemingly rather let corporate donors pick the nominee for them so they don’t have to express any beliefs in anything.
Sorry, but the 2024 presidential election was handled very badly, and Biden’s late decision to withdraw was certainly one factor. Running fifty candidates in this gubernatorial primary is absolutely another. But no, you’re right, everything is fine!
A Biden endorsement might be more of a handicap than a help.
Nobody chose to run these candidates except the candidates themselves (and their advisors, families, etc.) There is no central party authority that regulates how many candidates are in a primary. I don’t seem the point here of blaming the party for the number of candidates, most of whom have a negligible impact anyway. The bottom 40 could disappear today and you wouldn’t even notice the difference in the polls or in the outcome. Anyway, the candidates are individuals, not party machine animals.
In the race, Becerra took a 0.8% hit over the past 4 days, while Steyer went up by the same amount. I guess Steyer’s attack ads are having some effect. Compare their campaign budgets so far: Becerra $5.8 million; Steyer $180 million. Who isn’t trying to buy the election?
I wasn’t actually serious about the Biden endorsement, but the party can and should read the stats, contact the candidates, and help them sort the mess they’ve created.
It is absolutely on the party that they just wash their hands of it. No, they don’t have control, but what’s the point of a party that can’t even facilitate a conversation?
I’m having difficulty seeing how that would work. The national parties don’t have that authority at the national level, but they have conventions that make the final choice after the primaries. And that doesn’t prevent others from running, just not with the name and support of the party. Primary candidates, by definition, do not have the name or support of the party. Party officials are not elected by the public. Who even are they, and why should they have that kind of gatekeeper authority over an election?
They could establish* a central authority to make non-binding recommendations, but any candidate (and any voter) would be free to completely disregard that, and it would have no bearing on the party preference that the candidate chooses to be listed on the ballot. It would be no different than any other outside interest group making an endorsement.
*I think they might already have one? I have a vague memory of a kerfuffle over Kevin de Leon getting the Official Endorsement of the state party in whatever year he ran against Dianne Feinstein. It meant very little in the end.
Eight, and no, “The Democrats” are not “running” anyone. Candidates run themselves; the CA democratic party has no authority to tell someone they cant run.
I understand how it works. I’m not saying the party should determine the candidates. I’m saying that there ought to be a role for the Democratic Party to facilitate a conversation between all of these candidates, and say, “look: you each have the right to run for office, but if you ALL run for office, NONE of you will get into office. Blah blah blah, math, stats, tragedy of the commons. Let’s decide like civilized people who drops out, and which (say) three of you remain.”
As it stands, American Democrats can’t afford to lose the governorship of California. What I see in this thread is people throwing up their hands and saying “there’s nothing Democrats, as a party, can do! It’s up to the voters, who are required to NOT vote for the candidate they like best, but for the ones ahead in the polls.”
At the moment, it will probably be D vs R in the fall, but what with margins of error D vs D and R vs R are still possibilities. This is a preventable situation; you are saying “it isn’t preventable! Only the voters can solve it, by understanding that voting is a game, and how to win it!” But this requires voters to choose a candidate AND employ strategy, and expecting the electorate to manage this isn’t a great plan. Twisting arms to encourage bottom-tier candidates to drop and endorse is a better plan.