California's election results offer a fascinating insight into the state's political landscape, revealing a mix of surprises, trends, and the enduring influence of money in politics. Here's a deep dive into five key takeaways from the recent primary election, with a heavy dose of personal commentary and analysis.
Money Can't Always Buy You Love
Tom Steyer's self-funded gubernatorial campaign, which spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, is a prime example of the limitations of personal wealth in politics. In my opinion, Steyer's spending on his populism-coded bid was a strategic miscalculation. The fact that his advertising didn't translate to an electoral blowout is not surprising, as Garry South, a seasoned California Democratic strategist, noted. South's insight is particularly interesting, as he suggests that self-funded candidates can wear out their welcome with their spending, which is a subtle yet powerful commentary on the impact of money in politics.
Steyer's campaign is not the only example of this phenomenon. Patrick Wolff, Yvonne Yiu, and Saikat Chakrabarti all invested significant personal funds in their respective races, only to flounder at the ballot box. This trend raises a deeper question: How does the use of personal wealth in campaigns impact the public's perception of candidates and the political process as a whole?
A Good Night for 'Standard' Democrats
California voters seem to have embraced experienced, garden-variety Democrats, despite the national trend of anti-incumbent populism. Andrew Sinclair, a political science professor, explains that voters want a Democratic elected official who can fight Donald Trump. This desire has led to the rise of Xavier Becerra, a mild-mannered politico with a deep political resume and limited baggage. In my view, Becerra's success is a reflection of the public's desire for a standard, out-of-the-box Democrat who can appeal to voters in the middle.
This trend is not limited to the governor's race. Many Democratic incumbents in Congress, such as Mike Thompson, Brad Sherman, and Doris Matsui, have fended off challenges from younger, more progressive insurgents, keeping them firmly in second place. This suggests that voters are willing to stick with experienced candidates who can effectively represent their interests.
Party Still Matters
California's top-two primary system, which allows every candidate from every party to compete on the same ballot, has not lived up to its promise of encouraging across-the-aisle reaching candidates. In my perspective, the system has perpetuated partisan gridlock, as energized Democratic voters gravitate around their candidate and Republicans do the same. This trend is evident in the governor's race, where the top two spots are held by a Republican and a Democrat, and in the lieutenant governor and treasurer's races, where the top two spots are also blue vs. red.
However, there is an exception to this trend. Two Democratic candidates, Jane Kim and Sen. Ben Allen, appear to be headed to the November election for insurance commissioner. This suggests that the top-two system can still produce unexpected outcomes, and that party affiliation may not always be the determining factor in an election.
The Shut Out That Wasn't
Democrats can now officially breathe a sigh of relief, as the dreaded 'shut out' scenario has been averted. Early concerns over a possible 'shut out' of Democrats in the governor's race prompted party chair Rusty Hicks to commission a poll, which did little to change the outcome. In my opinion, this highlights the power of strategic voting and the importance of party unity in preventing such outcomes.
This trend is not unique to California. In 2018, a glut of anti-Trump Democratic congressional candidates threatened to hand Republicans both top spots in competitive races across the state. However, California Democrats ended up cleaning up in the subsequent 'blue wave' general election. This suggests that strategic voting and party unity can be effective tools in combating 'shut out' scenarios.
Senator Who?
The election results also reveal a surprising lack of star power among state lawmakers looking for other employment opportunities. Anthony Rendon, the former speaker of the California Assembly, failed to secure the largely symbolic position of superintendent of public instruction, sitting in fourth place as of Wednesday. Similarly, state Sen. Anna Caballero, a powerful appropriations chair, is trailing in her bid to become treasurer.
This trend is not limited to Rendon and Caballero. Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains is also trailing in her race to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao, and former state Sen. Steven Bradford is bringing up eighth place in the insurance commissioner contest. In my view, this highlights the importance of name recognition and the impact of party affiliation in elections.
However, there is a silver lining. Sen. Ben Allen and San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan have easily claimed the top spots in their respective races for Congress, while Sen. Aisha Wahab has also secured the top spot in her race for Congress. This suggests that while star power may not be enough to secure certain positions, it can still be a powerful tool in other races.
Conclusion
California's election results offer a fascinating insight into the state's political landscape, revealing a mix of surprises, trends, and the enduring influence of money in politics. As we move forward, it will be interesting to see how these trends play out in the general election and beyond. In my opinion, the key takeaways from this election are the importance of strategic voting, party unity, and the impact of money in politics. As we continue to navigate the complex world of politics, these insights will be crucial in shaping the future of California and beyond.
