Governor
For the California governor's race, it's not going great!
California uses a very silly jungle primary system where the top two candidates in the primary, regardless of party, proceed to the general election. This means if two Republicans get the most votes in the June 2 primary, we're guaranteed to have a Republican governor.
Because of how many Democrats are in the race, and because they're splitting the Democratic vote, the two MAGA Republican candidates are polling above all the Democrats. We need to vote for one of the Democrats who has a chance of finishing in the top two in order to avoid locking in a MAGA Republican as California governor.
Here's what a high-quality poll conducted on March 18 looks like (and the polling averages show basically the same results consistently for a couple months now):
| Candidate | March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Steve Hilton (R) | 17% |
| Chad Bianco (R) | 16% |
| Eric Swalwell (D) | 13% |
| Katie Porter (D) | 13% |
| Tom Steyer (D) | 10% |
| Xavier Becerra (D) | 5% |
| Antonio Villaraigosa (D) | 4% |
| Matt Mahan (D) | 4% |
| Betty Yee (D) | 1% |
| Tony Thurmond (D) | 1% |
| Others/Undecided | 16% |
Source: Berkeley IGS Poll #2026-01, March 18, 2026. 3,889 likely voters.
On the Democratic side of the race, it's not great either. Because so many candidates in the race are splitting the vote, we can't afford to "waste" votes on candidates who don't have a chance of finishing in the top two. None of the top polling candidates are that exciting to me personally, but after doing research on all three, there's a clear best option.
Steyer
Steyer is a billionaire former hedge fund manager, which is definitely not what I'm looking for in a candidate! But I'm convinced he's the best (or at least the least bad) option of the three. The political non-profit he's funded and run for over a decade has a long track record of doing good work, and they hire left-leaning policy folks aligned with the Warren-Bernie side of the party. I won't try to summarize the long list of stuff he's done with his non-profit here, especially since this American Prospect profile is so good — I'd just check that out for more info.
Swalwell
Swalwell is the current favorite, but only by a couple points. He's pretty far on the right flank of the Democratic Party in general, but here are a few specific reasons I'm not considering voting for him in the primary:
- Soft on ICE: He voted with Republicans and a relatively small number of Democrats for a bill that included language thanking and praising ICE in summer 2025.
- Absenteeism: Swalwell simply doesn't show up to do his job, even on important votes. Most House members miss some votes, but Swalwell missed more votes in 2025 than a House member who passed away in March.
- Corruption: He "repeatedly peddled the services of his politics-focused startup company to fellow lawmakers and Democratic staff, in possible violation of House Ethics rules" (NOTUS).
- Very pro-Israel: Swalwell is among the most pro-Israel Democrats in the House, and firmly on the right side of the party when it comes to Israel. He voted with Republicans and only twenty-one other Democrats to censure Rashida Tlaib. He voted with Republicans and a minority of Democrats on a resolution asserting that "Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism". This isn't necessarily the most important issue for a California state-level official, but it shows his (lack of) values.
Porter
I liked Porter when I first heard about her, and I'd definitely pick her over Swalwell, but her embrace of "slopulism" is a dealbreaker for me — I think Democrats should be supporting public goods instead of jumping on the tax cut bandwagon.
- No state income taxes on anyone earning $100k or less sounds good, but it's actually bad policy and even worse politics. This would effectively be a regressive tax cut and would probably lead to cuts to social safety net programs that disproportionately benefit lower-income folks. This is real consultant-brained nonsense, and it's trying to play the neoliberal/Republican game of pushing tax cuts, instead of defending public goods those taxes pay for. American income taxes are actually already pretty low! Also see this longer-form discussion about how taxation is healthy for democracies. The problem is that we don't get enough public goods for those taxes, not that the taxes are too high. If she's serious about making the tax code more equitable, why is she against the proposed wealth tax? Porter is generally pretty progressive but she's on the wrong side of this important issue.
- Creates a toxic work environment and treats staff badly: Though these critiques are disproportionately aimed at women, and are often amplified by conservative outlets with an agenda, they seem credible to me. A named former staffer has gone on the record, and there's leaked video showing Porter swearing at a staffer during a meeting with Energy Secretary Granholm. She also has objectively very high staff turnover, peaking at the 99th percentile in the House in 2020, which is good evidence there's something going on there. This matters even more for an executive than it does for a legislator.
Other candidates
Honestly, some of the other candidates are pretty appealing! However, if you don't want to see a mega MAGA Republican governor in California, it doesn't make sense to vote for them. Yes, the jungle primary is bad, and we should change it so that we can vote for whoever we like in the primary without worrying about getting a Republican governor.
Lieutenant Governor
Coming soon.
Secretary of State
Coming soon.
Attorney General
Coming soon.
Controller
Coming soon.
Treasurer
Coming soon.
Commissioner of Insurance
Coming soon.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Coming soon.