Share and Follow
In Tuesday night’s CNN debate, Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer, the leading Democratic contenders in the California gubernatorial race following Eric Swalwell’s unexpected exit, found themselves on the defensive. Both candidates faced a barrage of attacks from their Republican and Democratic challengers as they vied for a coveted spot in the state’s “jungle primary,” where only the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, progress to the next round.
Throughout the debate, the competition remained relatively balanced. However, Katie Porter, who had initially been a strong contender, made a critical misstep by inadvertently highlighting her own temperament as a potential issue, which shifted the dynamics on stage.
Following Porter’s gaffe, Chad Bianco seized the moment, capturing the audience’s attention for a significant portion of the debate.
Meanwhile, Steve Hilton injected a light-hearted tone into the proceedings, delivering pointed critiques with a smile. Antonio Villaraigosa, on the other hand, appeared increasingly desperate as he attempted to challenge the frontrunners with little success. Matt Mahan positioned himself as the moderate voice, attempting to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum.
Steve Hilton took a whimsical approach, smiling as he delivered policy zingers. Antonio Villaraigosa looked desperate, as he flailed at the frontrunners. And Matt Mahan tried to triangulate between both sides as the moderate in the race.
Notably, Hilton and Bianco avoided attacking each other, and were even friendly onstage. They seem to realize that each of them only has a chance if the other also qualifies; they have to finish first and second.
Whether that happens might be a shrinking possibility, if Democrats can settle on one strong candidate. Viewed as a contest between Becerra and Steyer, Becerra won. But the field is still spread too thinly among Democrats to make any outcome certain, and the two Republicans are still in with a shot to win.
Here’s how each did:
Xavier Becerra: A- The former Secretary of Health and Human Services defended the state’s high gas tax, again — an untenable position. But he did so with poise and gravitas, and repeated that he had fought Trump in court. He also deflected some of the attacks other candidates flung at him all evening — though he struggled to explain away the corruption scandal that Hilton brought up late in the debate.
Chad Bianco: B+ Another strong, at times exceptional, performance from the unshakable sheriff. But he took some damage when Villaraigosa attacked him for being an “Oath Keeper.” No one really remembers what that means, but it reminded voters of their doubts about a candidate who has hung out on the right. He played into his strengths as a law enforcement official, and kept his cool even when attacking.
Steve Hilton: B A solid performance, but he had to dance around questions tying him to the president — such as whether Trump won the 2020 election, and whether he would continue Trump’s policy of deporting illegal aliens. He sounded evasive when he should have faced these questions squarely. He did launch a solid attack on Becerra, but might have left it too late in the debate to make a difference.
Tom Steyer: B- This was his best performance ever, which isn’t saying much, but he had to defend himself for much of the first half hour against attacks, and did well enough. He still comes across as clownish, and strains to convince viewers that all his endorsements are about more than buying support with his money. He also said that the billionaire tax doesn’t go far enough, whatever that means.
Matt Mahan: C The mayor of San Jose should be running away with this race. But his constant attempts to triangulate are too complicated. He tried attacking other candidates, and most of his attacks fell flat. He also manages to look young and inexperienced, despite the fact that he actually has a good record. He also quickly sought to reassure voters that he does not, in fact, want to reduce the size of government.
Antonio Villaraigosa: D He looked desperate from the start, launching into attacks on the frontrunners without stating anything about who he is or what he stands for. He attacked Hilton but then tried to pick up Hilton’s attack on Becerra over alleged corruption. It’s odd that he made the debate stage but that Tony Thurmond couldn’t swing an invite from CNN. It’s not even clear why Villaraigosa is still running.
Katie Porter: D- Abysmal performance from a candidate who really needed to do well. She committed political malpractice by bringing up the thing voters don’t like about her — temperament — and then used foul language, as if driving home the point. She also made odd faces at times (she and Steyer would be amusing to watch on a split screen with the sound off). She was scrappy, but not a good kind of scrappy.
Moderators: B Solid job overall, and they let the candidates go at each other. Some of their questions singled out individual candidates, but not unfairly. Kaitlan Collins introduced a whopper of a question about whether California would jail Trump administration officials over immigration enforcement (it’s against the Constitution).
But she and Elex Michaelson steered the lively discussion capably.
Joel Pollak is the opinion editor of the California Post.