I’m not sure if this info will be accurate tomorrow, but it looks like Xavier Becerra will become the next governor of California (unless Steyer somehow pulls ahead).
He has a list of his views on the issues, but I have no idea if he will follow through on them or not. Newsom used to run on medicare for all until he actually had the power to implement it.
Newsom wants to run for president in 2028 (from what I can tell) but I seriously doubt he wins the primary. Who knows though.
I’m more curious if Becerra will be able to implement meaningful reforms in things like health care, housing affordability, etc when he wins. The democratic candidate usually gets about 60% of the vote in the general election for governor in CA.
I suspect not a huge change from the Newsom regime, though he seems to have a bit less charisma, energy and maverick impulses than Newsom. By CA standards he projects from afar like a somewhat bland, MOR, corporate Democrat. I’m sure he’ll propose reforms of one sort or another. Whether they’ll be bold or meaningful…eh, we’ll see. I’m not expecting much, but maybe he’ll surprise me. It’s certainly happened to me before (neither Schwarzenegger nor Jerry Brown in his second stint panned out as I first expected). It almost feels like he backed into the post position by accident - Harris decided not to run, Padilla decided not to run, Porter just couldn’t get traction, Swalwell very messily imploded, while Steyer was too plutocratic-looking for some of the masses and potentially too disruptive for some of the Democratic leadership and state business interests. It’s been a kinda odd campaign.
He’s miles and miles better than the alternative, though.
This is what I expect too. Basically nothing of use or changing anything. He’ll just keep the ship doing the same as always and not steer it into the rocks.
I hope he is better but I really do not think he will come close to meaningful change.
I don’t live there either, but housing affordability is a major issue there. so is homelessness and mentally ill homeless.
also California has such a huge economy (bigger than almost all nations) that when they institute statewide regulations in California it can set new national standards.
so if California sets new regulations for AI, companies will probably just make California’s standards the new national standard to avoid having two markets and two products.
also California is a state that can lead on health reform by improving the ACA and setting a positive standard for other states
Depends on the nature of the standards. Standards on use of AI might, in practice, cross state lines, but things like standards on datacenters would just mean that datacenters get built in other places instead of California. And standards on datacenters would be a lot easier for a state to regulate than standards on use of AI, which are probably better handled by school and corporate policies.
I guess that California could do something like mandate that any software sold in the state of California must have an option to come without any embedded AI tools, or the like. Residents of the state could still do whatever they want with AI, then, but once software companies are forced to make that available, it’d probably be available out of the state, too.
Yes Becerra will likely be our next governor, but the real election will be in November. Yesterday was just a runoff where we had 64(!) candidates running. The top two vote getters will compete in November for the position.
Added — as of right now, Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton are the two leaders, but rest assured, come November, Becerra will win here.
A lot of the things Steyer was running on are genuine problems, which were almost entirely cost of living issues: cost of electricity (utility monopoly), affordable housing, medical care (no promise of single payer or anything like that), and corporate influence over these kinds of issues that skews things to the advantage of corporations instead of people. Of these, affordable housing seems to be the one that all the Democrats made promises about, not just in this race but across the board.
Generally OK if you can afford to live here. Homelessness is definitely still an issue, but it’s handled more locally than statewide.
He’s a multi-millionaire, though. There’s quite a difference between those two things, but both of them are so far from ordinary California voters’ experiences that I think it’s worth noting.
(Not super-multi: I think $7 million is what I’ve seen quoted. But that’s seven more millions than I have!)
I think you’d have a hard time finding any serious candidate for an office like governor with a net worth that isn’t in the multi-millions. Politicians come from well-paid professions like lawyers and doctors, and they generally have a fair bit of experience and status in those professions.
Yep, we have a solid dem majority on the legislature. In some areas housing is not very affordable.
In or near the bigger cities. Homes run near $1m near, but get out some distance and there are nice homes lower than the national average ( Bakersfield- $300K gets a decant house, the US average is $400-500K. )
Thats the thing- California is not only BIG, it is incredibly diverse in area, population, income, housing etc.
Meh, Hard to run for any major office without being at least moderately wealthy.
Bakersfield is cheap because it is in the San Joaquin Valley. They have poor air quality, lower paying jobs in agricultural, an above average crime rate, and it is really hot in the summer. My MIL was from Bakersfield. She used to say that the best view of town is from your rearview mirror.
California has a serious housing crisis that may never be solved. Land and construction costs are very high, so building new housing barely moves the needle on rent or purchase prices. Most people also want to live within a 30-60 minute drive of LA, San Francisco, San Diego, or Orange County; where there is very little land left to develop. Newsome has done a few things to help, like eliminate single family land use designations, allow second units to be built on existing properties, and reduce the CEQA requirements for infill housing near public transportation.
You know, not steering it into the rocks or doing anything crazy is really not a terrible thing overall, considering some of the alternatives we have seen lately.
I mean, I’d be ecstatic just to see a moderate Republican in office here in Texas, never mind a Democrat.
Which isn’t actually ideal: parking / transit infrastructure doesn’t always support infill; in my family home, the newly built units in people’s tiny backyards are good in some ways, terrible in others.
I was going to add that to my response but forgot. The fact that California is so car dependent makes these in-fill projects undesirable to people living in the areas. The parking from the 2-3 cars per unit overflows into the neighboring residential areas.
This is very, very true. I don’t really anticipate ever getting that upset with Becerra as governor. I could be very wrong - he might shoot off his own foot one day, as politicians sometimes do. Also, annoyed sure. They all annoy me eventually.
But we’ve got a couple more years minimally of a MAGA regime, with CA squarely in the crosshairs. Successfully steering through treacherous waters with just some dings and paint scratches will be more or less satisfactory from where I’m sitting.
Only if you live near a city of town, Bakersfield isnt the only cheap area- in the far North of California, with great air quality and weather- you also get cheap homes. Just that there are few jobs.
Right. But it is not “California” it is the urban areas of California.
Still only 54% counted. But Bianco- the other GOPer is out of it.
