With Swalwell exit, California governor’s race is starting anew

SACRAMENTO — Eric Swalwell is out — of the California gubernatorial race and Congress, spending time with family, as they say, after allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. That could be considered good news for the slew of Democrats who remain in the running, and even the two Republicans currently polling near the top.

But this muddled campaign season has clearly failed to capture voters’ imagination. This despite a sex scandal, a billionaire spending his millions, a dark horse spending tech-bro millions, a debate where the invitations were so controversial the event was canceled and a sheriff seizing ballots in a failed MAGA-pandering stunt. (President Trump ended up backing his opponent.)

After all that, you’d think Californians would care, at least in a spectacle sort of way.

But they don’t. At least not yet.

So is “undecided” going to remain the leader in the race until voters are forced to fill in their ballots? Even Republicans, with the Trump-endorsed Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco as their main choices, can’t make up their minds.

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak ponder why the race is such a hot mess, who benefits from the Swalwell implosion, whether anyone will ever get excited about any of these candidates — and what all that means for the future of California.

Chabria: We are less than 50 days out from the primary on June 2 and somehow this race remains both boring and unpredictable.

There’s lots of talk about whether the two remaining top Democratic candidates, former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire investor Tom Steyer, will scoop up Swalwell’s supporters — or if a second-tier contender such as San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra or ex-L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa may rise from the near-dead with a surprise surge.

With such a short amount of time and candidates who have already proved their lack of charisma, I’m worried that what happens next really comes down to money — which Steyer and Mahan have. Mahan’s tech-industry backers are already said to be lining up millions of dollars in ad buys to blitz his name and image on our consciousness in these final days, like a breakfast cereal we didn’t know we wanted to buy.

Ditto Steyer, though he’s got a much higher profile and backing from several key unions.

Do you think that money is going to rule the finish line in this one, or do any of the other candidates have a shot through sheer determination?

Barabak: Let’s be real.

If Tom Steyer was some schmo named Tom Steinway without a vast fortune buoying his political ambitions, he wouldn’t be remotely in the running, much less talked about as one of the putative front-runners. As it is, Steyer has burned through the equivalent of a small country’s GDP and he’s still not cracking 15% in polls.

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, notwithstanding all those he’s managed to leverage through his wealth.

California has a long history of rejecting moneybag candidates. In fact, in modern times not one has been elected governor. That said, we’ve never seen a contest like this one — and that was before Swalwell’s candidacy went up in salacious smoke.

The closest parallel — absent that above-referenced self-immolation — was in 1998. Voters weren’t crazy about the two leading candidates, including a rich guy blasting them with a firehose of TV advertising, so they opted for the colorless guy running far back in the pack. (And yes, dear reader, Gray Davis was eventually recalled, but that came well after the fact.)

There’s a saying in Iowa, around its presidential caucuses. The secret is to organize, organize, organize and then get hot at the end. California, obviously, is not the kind of state you win by holding a million and one kaffeeklatsches. But the principle — lay the groundwork, then count on timing and good fortune — could apply here.

Who might that be? Mahan’s sudden cash gusher can’t hurt. But your guess is as good as mine.

Chabria: The thing about organizing is that for Democrats, much of that work is done by labor unions. They provide the people, the phone banks, the door knockers. The California Labor Federation this time around endorsed basically everybody (Swalwell, Steyer, Villaraigosa and Porter), giving none of the Democratic candidates an advantage.

In a rare move, the California Labor Federation and Service Employees International Union California pulled their endorsement of Swalwell, as have other unions after these allegations came out. But labor remains split among the other candidates (though Steyer seems to be gaining unions’ affections), a real problem when it comes to that kind of organizing.

It’s that division of real people power that makes me worry money will have even more influence this time around.

But also, there is the unknown. There’s chatter online that a famous or strong contender (Kamala? A celebrity?) could stage a last-minute write-in campaign. Although state law no longer allows a write-in for the general election, there’s a tiny window left for one in the primary. What do you think? Could someone new swoop in and excite the voters enough to go rogue?

Barabak: Well, there’s Steve Cloobeck.

Who, you’re probably asking?

He’s a rich real estate developer who quit the race in November after an unsung yearlong campaign. Upon exiting, he enthusiastically endorsed his close friend, Eric Swalwell.

Speaking with our colleague Seema Mehta, Cloobeck said he wished the Legislature would amend the state Constitution so he could file to reenter the governor’s race — a delusion right up there alongside President Trump comparing himself to Jesus.

Seriously, political gossips abhor a vacuum, so they fill it with all sorts of fantastical scenarios of candidates riding in on white horses and rescuing us from … what exactly?

I’ve been the rare voice arguing this governor’s race is not at all boring. Boring would have been Kamala Harris holding a commanding lead for the Democratic nomination and people speculating whether anyone could stop her. While this bunch of candidates won’t send laser light dancing across the darkened sky, there are plenty of quite capable people still in the running, unless you’re looking for someone to entertain and/or offer California four years of distraction and diversion.

And we’ve seen what putting a reality-TV star in the White House has gotten us.

Chabria: At the end of the day, or at least election day, this is a question of whom we trust with the future of California. Ultimately, that’s why this race is a hot mess — none of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, have offered a vision inspiring enough to make voters want to trust them with the next four or eight years.

To me, that’s the real failure here. I don’t think voters would mind boring at all, if it was dolled up with credibility and competence.

I agree with you that we don’t need another reality star in any elected office. And more than one of these candidates has the skills to run the state. But in an era of deceit, arrogance and flashy incompetence, voters do want someone they feel they can trust.

So far, none of the candidates have delivered that sense of security, that they are campaigning as a public servant — instead of the thirsty contender hoping for a rose.

So either someone steps up and earns the rose, or it goes to the top-two least-worst. The June primary is holding on to her secrets for now.

Barabak: You know me; always one to look on the bright side!

If you’re a Republican, the bright side is the long shot, but not impossible, prospect of Bianco and Hilton nabbing both spots on June 2. That would mean one of the two lands in the governor’s office in January, notwithstanding California’s overwhelmingly Democratic leaning.

For an unaffiliated voter and political noncombatant like me, a Californian who deeply cares about my home state, the bright side is this: At least people are finally paying attention to the governor’s race.

So dive in! You’ve got just under seven weeks to make up your mind.