candidates

Days before California voters receive their mail-in ballots, gubernatorial candidates Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, and Steve Hilton, a Republican, will debate in a nationally televised face-off.

On Sept. 30 at CNN’s Burbank studio, the two candidates hoping to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newson are expected to spar over sharply divergent visions for the future of the state. California’s next leader is expected to face pressing fiscal issues, as well as continued battle with the Trump administration.

Given California’s deep Democratic tilt, there was a question whether the two men would debate.

On Aug. 19, Becerra promised multiple debates with Hilton ahead of the general election.

“We will have debates, and between now and Nov. 3, we will continue to go out there and meet with folks to make sure they have an opportunity to see the candidates,” Becerra told reporters after greeting business owners, community leaders and voters in a walking tour of Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles. “Voters need to have good information. We’ll make sure they have it, and there will be debates.”

The following day, Hilton said he was skeptical of Becerra’s promise.

“I don’t believe him unless he commits to an actual debate. Invitations are on the table for dates and places,” Hilton said. “Why can’t he just accept them? I think he’s lying. I don’t think he wants to do debates because he doesn’t want to debate his record.”

September’s hour-long debate, taking place shortly before county elections officials begin mailing ballots to all the state’s registered voters, will be moderated by the cable network’s anchors Dana Bash and Jake Tapper.

It is the most attention a California gubernatorial contest has drawn since 2010, when “Today” show host Matt Lauer and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd moderated nationally televised clashes.

That is perhaps unsurprising given how sharply the California electorate has swung left, with no Republican winning a statewide contest since 2006. Two did that year.

While there will not be a studio audience, the debate will air on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español, CNN.com and related TV and mobile apps for subscribers.

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.

A UCLA linebacker shells out $11,100 to help a Republican senator in Pennsylvania.

A businessman from the small Northern California town of Eureka spends $515,000 to defeat a powerful Democrat in South Dakota.

A Silicon Valley couple funnels cash to elect Democratic secretaries of state in swing states like Ohio who will oversee voting in the coming presidential election.

Those tidbits from campaign finance reports demonstrate why California lately feels like Iowa or New Hampshire next winter. For politicians, including presidential candidates, it’s where the money is.

Last week alone, Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware made the trek. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona was also here, following his rival, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who had been here the week before. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, another Republican contender, will be here next month.

“It is the place you go to get political money,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

Californians spent at least $502 million on federal campaigns in the last four years, federal campaign records show — 24% more than runner-up New York and about 13 % of all federal campaign funds raised nationally.

At The Times’ request, the center compiled a list of California’s top 100 donors to federal campaigns. The Times interviewed contributors and reviewed Federal Election Commission documents and other records.

The donors gave during the 2003-2004 election cycle, which included the latest presidential campaign, and the 2005-2006 races for the U.S. House and Senate.

Donors’ motives vary. They might be trying to gain an edge in business, or access to powerful officials. Some win perquisites, such as ambassadorships. Many are ideologues whose passions run high on the war or healthcare or taxes.

Federal law restricts donors from giving more than $4,600 directly to a single candidate in a year. But many give far larger sums to independent campaign committees. Others leverage their money by organizing fundraising events.

In the past four years, Deborah Rappaport and her husband, venture capitalist Andrew Rappaport, of Woodside, have spent $5.2 million on federal politics, much of it to encourage young people to vote. They held a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina this month, raising more than $100,000.

“The stakes are huge,” Deborah Rappaport said, describing herself as “an old lefty.”

In one of the more unusual uses of campaign money, Silicon Valley Democrats Michael and Frances Kieschnick helped fund a successful campaign in 2006 to elect Democrats as secretaries of state who will oversee balloting in five swing states — a reaction to what some perceived as bias by Republican officials in Florida and Ohio in the 2000 and 2004 presidential vote counting.

Los Angeles-area developer Rick Caruso has a goal of raising $1 million for Romney’s bid for the Republican nomination.

“I’m on a big Republican list,” said Caruso, who has given $315,000 since 2003 to federal campaigns. “Politicians … never lose your number.”

Californians had a significant role in the 2006 fight for control of Congress, donating $6.6 million directly to candidates in the six U.S. Senate races that tipped control to Democrats, campaign records show.

In Montana, Democrat Jon Tester ousted Republican Sen. Conrad Burns by 3,600 votes, aided in part by Richard and Marilyn Mazess of Montecito. They gave $50,000 to the independent group Campaign Money Watch, which aired a commercial ridiculing Burns for his ties to “big oil.”

Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and other Californians donated a total of $500,000 directly to Tester. Burns collected $460,000 from such Californians as Los Angeles venture capitalist Elliott Broidy and Edward Atsinger III, of Camarillo, chief executive of Christian radio network Salem Broadcasting.

“The money — the California and New York money — was very important to Tester,” said political scientist Craig Wilson of Montana State University, Billings.

In addition to familiar California sources of political money — defense, energy and aerospace companies, developers, unions, Hollywood and Silicon Valley — the top donors include numerous lawyers, heirs and heiresses, and little-known financial, agricultural and other players scattered around the state.

(Among the big-name donors who don’t make the latest list: Hollywood mogul David Geffen and investor Ronald Burkle.)

California is widely seen as a bastion of Democrats. But its greenbacks often are shaded Republican red.

Robin Arkley, who owns a finance and real estate firm in Eureka, had a hand in upending the Democratic power structure nationally in 2004. The Republican spent $515,000 on independent campaign ads attacking then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Daschle was ousted by Republican John Thune, who raised $1.29 million from California, more than any other state — including South Dakota, according to Political Moneyline.

For the 2006 election, Steven B. Taylor, a retired farmer from Salinas, his wife and their three adult children spent heavily on the GOP.

One of the Taylors’ sons, Christian, plays football for UCLA. He donated $45,000, much of it to such Republicans as Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Altogether, the Taylor family gave Santorum $14,700.

There was one exception to the Taylors’ Republican ways. They gave $20,000 to the Green Party of Luzerne County, Pa., including $9,000 from Christian. The goal: to help a Green Party candidate take votes from Robert P. Casey Jr., the Democrat challenging Santorum. The strategy failed and Casey unseated Santorum.

The Taylors did not return calls.

In addition to directly raising millions for President Bush, the state’s Republicans have funded Progress for America, a group based in Washington that has countered the liberal MoveOn.org. In 2005, it aired television ads urging senators to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court. It also has run ads supporting the war in Iraq.

A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision, the Spanish-language television network, has given the group nearly $10 million since 2003. Stockton developer Alex G. Spanos gave another $5 million, as did Los Angeles billionaire Roland E. Arnall and his wife, Dawn. Caruso chipped in $100,000 to help Roberts, now chief justice.

Bush has bestowed ambassadorships on five Californians, including Los Angeles car dealer Robert H. Tuttle, United Kingdom; Orange County investor George Argyros, formerly to Spain; Los Angeles venture capitalist Ronald Spogli, Italy; and investor Frank Baxter, Uruguay. Combined, they have given $1.6 million to the GOP since 2000, including donations to Bush’s inaugurals.

The fifth, Arnall, is the biggest donor-ambassador. He represents U.S. interests in the Netherlands. Since 2004, Roland and Dawn Arnall have given $5.5 million primarily to Republican candidates and organizations, and another $1 million to Bush’s 2005 inaugural. Arnall owns home mortgage lender Ameriquest Capital Corp.

Los Angeles movie producer Stephen L. Bing was the state’s largest single donor, with nearly $14.2 million, to federal campaigns during the past four years, most of it to Democrats. Bing, who declines interviews, spent another $49 million on a failed California initiative in 2006 to boost alternative energy. He likely will support Clinton’s candidacy.

Clinton has taken $7.7 million from here for her U.S. Senate campaigns, second only to the $26.5 million she has raised in her home base.

After Illinois, California has been the second largest source of money for Obama, Federal Election Commission records show.

Sacramento Democrat Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis and her father, Angelo Tsakopoulos, have helped organize events for many Democrats, but are “Hillary people all the way.”

“We want to see the White House restored to competent hands,” she said.

She explained her family’s political involvement by telling her father’s story.

He came here at age 15 from Greece with nothing, made a fortune as a developer and hosted a president, Bill Clinton, at his home. Tsakopoulos never could have attained such success in the old country.

These days, Democratic politicians all come courting.

“Everybody calls and we love it,” she said. “What an incredible honor and privilege.”

*

Dan.morain@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Top 20 organizational donors

California corporations, labor unions and organizations include some of the biggest national donors to federal campaigns. Federal law bars corporations and unions from giving directly to candidates. But their executives and employees are free to make donations. Here is a list of the top 20 donors by organization.

*–* Donor Industry Total (millions) Party preference Service Employees Internationa Labor $4.83 Democrat l Union Northrop Aerospace 3.19 Leans Rep Grumman Sierra Club Environment 3.10 Democrat Lerach, Attorney-Plaintiffs 2.09 Democrat Coughlin et al Time Warner Entertainment 2.05 Democrat American Academy of Health Care 1.98 Leans Rep Ophthalmolog y Cisco Systems Technology 1.64 Bipartisan Kleiner, Finance 1.46 Leans Dem Perkins et al Edison Energy 1.24 Leans Rep Internationa l TCW Group Finance 1.23 Republican SAIC Defense 1.22 Leans Rep Morongo Band Native American of Mission issues; casinos 1.16 Bipartisan Indians Chevron Corp Energy 1.13 Republican Allianz Insurance 1.11 Republican General Defense 1.09 Leans Rep Atomics Jacobs Engineers 1.09 Bipartisan Engineering Group Kazan, Attorney-Plaintiffs 0.98 Democrat McClain et al Intuit Technology 0.93 Bipartisan Occidental Energy 0.93 Leans Rep Petroleum Capital Finance 0.92 Bipartisan Group Cos

*–*

Democrat or Republican means at least 80% donated to one party or affiliated candidate or interest group; leans means 60% or more to one party; bipartisan means 40% to 60% to each party. Donations from companies based elsewhere came from California branch.

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics, Times research, federal election records. Graphics reporting by Dan Morain

—

Top 20 individual contributors

California is like a magnet to candidates nationally. From 2003 to 2006, Californians donated at least $502 million to federal candidates and national political parties, and to independent campaign groups known as 527s. The top 20 donors are spread from Eureka to

San Diego:

*–* Amount Party Name City Industry (in millions) preference Stephen Bing Los Angeles Real estate $14.18 Dem. heir, film prod Herbert&Mar; Oakland Finance; 13.85 Dem. ion Sandler retired A. Jerrold Los Angeles Univision 9.94 Rep. Perenchio chairman Roland and Los Angeles Ameriquest; Dawn Arnall ambassador 5.52 Rep. to Netherlands Alexander Stockton SD Chargers, 5.48 Rep. G./Faye deve Spanos Deborah/And Portola Valley Venture 5.19 Dem. rew capital Rappaport Ted Waitt San Diego Gateway co-founder, Avalon 5.06 Dem. Capital Anne Getty Corona del Mar Getty heiress 1.63 Dem. Earhart Susie/Mark San Francisco Found Esprit 1.60 Dem. Buell clothing Angelo Sacramento Real estate 1.25 Dem. Tsakopoulos Louise Gund Berkeley Philanthropi 1.24 Dem. st Marcia l. Los Angeles Entertainment 1.24 Dem. Carsey Robin, Cherie, Allison, Elizabeth Eureka Finance, 1.23 Rep. Arkley real estate Peter S. Los Angeles Investments, Bing father of 1.09 Dem. Stephen Wayne B. Glendale Public 1.07 Rep. Hughes Storage Inc. Michael/Fra Palo Alto Fin.,philant 1.07 Dem. nces hropy Kieschnick William/Wil Newport Beach Developer 0.99 Rep. la Dean Lyon Richard/Sha Los Angeles Entertainment 0.96 Dem. ri Foos Stewart/Lyn Los Angeles Finance, ag. 0.90 Dem. da Resnick M. Quinn and Wayne Jordan Oakland Philanthropy 0.67 Dem. Delaney , real estate

*–*

In some cases, immediate family members also donated

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics, Times research, federal election records. Graphics reporting by Dan Morain

As a teenager before he was even allowed to vote, Charlie Comfort organized for then-Sen. Barack Obama in his hometown of Oskaloosa, Iowa.

Now he’s a Republican.

Meet Charlie. He lives in Waterloo.

He’s 23 and this will be his third presidential caucus.

Charlie’s first foray into politics was during the 2008 campaign. He met Obama at the Smokey Row Coffeehouse, one of the most popular stops for candidates in Oskaloosa, on the Fourth of July in 2007.

Obama campaign volunteers. (Handout)

It was Malia Obama’s 9th birthday, and the shop’s staff put the candidate’s daughter’s name up on the marquee inside.

After Obama spoke, Charlie ran home excited and ready to help.

He wasn’t old enough to vote but dedicated hours to organizing his neighbors, teachers and anyone else who would listen. The Obama campaign said Charlie, a high school student, made more phone calls than any other volunteer in town.

His hard work — at age 15 — earned him a prime spot next to the candidate in this group photo.

The Comfort family was the subject of a front-page story in the Washington Times the morning of the caucus.

Why?

They clearly illustrated the divided nature of the state: Martha Comfort backed Hillary Clinton, Keith Comfort preferred John Edwards and their son was traveling all over the region to put up Obama lawn signs instead of finishing his homework.

Here they are, eight years ago.

Martha Comfort, a legal assistant in town, was working as a Clinton precinct captain. Keith Comfort, a banker, was a little more passive about his support for Edwards, who would ultimately come in second in the caucuses (and later drop out of the race).

Here’s a semi-awkward clip where I tried to get them to pretend they were in a caucus.

SIGN UP for our free Essential Politics newsletter >>

Eight years later, Charlie is a Republican.

Before we get to how that happened, it’s important to note the teenager used the skills he built as a political organizer to run for office himself.

At the age of 19 in October 2011, he became the youngest school board member in Oskaloosa’s history after unseating a 17-year incumbent and getting all his friends to vote.

His interest in education policy had an unintended consequence — he didn’t like that Obama, for whom he’d worked so hard to get to the White House, had not revamped the No Child Left Behind Act as promised. He found himself intrigued by the Republican candidates coming to town in the hopes of winning the Iowa caucuses and challenging Obama in 2012.

In the 2012 Iowa caucuses, he was a Newt Gingrich precinct captain.

But he changed his mind on the way in, and his first caucus vote ultimately went to ex-Sen. Rick Santorum. “I appreciate he spent so much time in Iowa,” Charlie says now.

Once Mitt Romney won the nomination, Charlie set out to help the GOP in the swing state.

That fall, he appeared in a piece by “PBS NewsHour.” (About four minutes into the piece, interviewed at the Smokey Row coffee shop, of course.)

Fast forward four years, and he’s got a tough choice to make.

Charlie has moved from Oskaloosa to Waterloo and is working in marketing. He spent his weekend “chasing the candidates around” because he was undecided as the long campaign for the caucuses comes to a close.

Like most Iowans interested in this quirky process, he’s met many of the hopefuls as they make their way across the state. He even introduced former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at an event at Smokey Row in October. But that didn’t really help him make up his mind.

“I am disappointed by all the anger, rhetoric and hatred that has been spewed by the party this year,” he says. “I am disappointed that the candidates who would support more moderate values have balked on that to try and get more of a conservative base turning out and I don’t think the Republican platform has been expressed as well as it could.”

Martha and Keith Comfort are still Democrats.

But they also are still split on their preferred candidate.

Keith Comfort gave his first-ever political donation, to Sen. Bernie Sanders. Martha Comfort isn’t working on Clinton’s behalf this time, but she’s still in her corner — probably.

“Now I’m on the fence and I may lean towards Bernie,” she says. “I like what he stands for and I look at Hillary and she really does have the experience but she does have some baggage. But I guess everybody does.”

Then again … “I’m leaning to Hillary because she’s realistic about what she’s promising. She knows what takes place in the office of the president and the process to get things through Congress.”

She says she’ll be resolute in her choice before walking into her neighborhood caucus meeting Monday night: “Nobody is going to persuade me there, even if my husband is across the room.”

As for Charlie, he’s made up his mind.

Iowa caucusgoer Charlie Comfort and presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina

Charlie Comfort and Carly Fiorina. (Courtesy of Charlie Comfort)

He didn’t even need the whole weekend.

“This is who I plan to caucus for,” Charlie said Saturday via Facebook Messenger.

It wasn’t intended to have dramatic effect, but the photo didn’t come through for several minutes.

But there he is, smiling next to former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, considered a long shot in Iowa and nationally.

“She seems genuine, authentic. She has a business background and has experience with policymakers, whether it be domestically or foreign. Ultimately, I think she is in it for the right reasons — to help fix America,” he said.

“I am very impressed with her secretary-to-CEO story. Only in America.”

For more, go to www.latimes.com/politics

ALSO:

Everything you need to know about the Iowa caucuses and why they matter

From west to east, Iowa voters have starkly different realities and fears

How Martin O’Malley could decide who wins the Democratic caucuses in Iowa

WASHINGTON — As the year’s midterm primaries draw to a close, Tuesday’s results in Florida, Wyoming and Alaska continued to underscore an unpredictable election season marked by unreliable polls, intra-party divides and surprise showings by political outsiders.

In one high-profile surprise, democratic socialist state Rep. Angie Nixon’s easily defeated former Army intelligence officer Alexander Vindman in Florida’s U.S. Senate primary, despite Vindman having raised 16 times as much money as the new Democratic nominee, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks campaign finance.

According to Florida Politics, a digital media outlet, a now-deleted Change Research poll showed Vindman leading Nixon by 10 points. At that time, 41% of Democrats polled were still undecided.

In the race for a Senate seat Democrats hope to flip, former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola outpolled incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, with another Republican Dan Sullivan — this one a retired teacher — also making the cut for the four-person, ranked-choice general election in November.

The results from Tuesday night also show that President Trump’s influence on his party’s base may be dwindling. Three of his endorsed candidates in Wyoming and Florida, both safe red states, were defeated.

Here are four takeaways from Tuesday’s results:

Democratic socialist overcame a huge cash disadvantage

Nixon, who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America and the Working Families Party, won in a massive upset against Vindman, a moderate selected to run by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Nixon will face Republican incumbent Sen. Ashley Moody in November in a special election to serve the final two years of former Sen. Marco Rubio’s term. Moody was appointed to the seat by Gov. Ron DeSantis when Rubio became secretary of State.

Through a highly coordinated grassroots campaign, Nixon overcame a $15-million fundraising deficit against Vindman in a state where affordability, high property insurance costs and public infrastructure strain were top concerns for many voters.

Although Vindman had the support of the Democratic establishment his lack of profile in Florida — where he has lived for just three years — was a clear detriment, said Susan MacManus, a political analyst at the University of South Florida.

“Angie Nixon was extremely well known in Democratic circles,” MacManus said. “There’s a battle here in Florida: Do you want a Democratic candidate who’s a fighter, or do you want someone more in line with the establishment? … Nixon had no money, but she had a presence.”

But Nixon still faces a steep battle against Moody, MacManus said. According to state data, Florida has 1.5 million more Republicans than Democrats, meaning that Nixon will have to win over most of the independents — and perhaps convert a few Republicans — to have a shot in the general election.

Florida redistricting had a big effect on House races

In May, DeSantis’ office rearranged districts for the second time this decade to secure more safe-Republican seats in the House of Representatives, shortly after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

In Florida’s 25th District, a newly drawn coastal area north of Miami, incumbent Rep. Jared Moskowitz defeated democratic socialist and activist Oliver Larkin.

The redistricting increased the number of Jewish voters in the district, which likely hurt Larkin’s candidacy because of his openly anti-Israel stance, said Jonathan Cervas, an assistant professor at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology.

Moskowitz will face the former mayor of Boca Raton, Scott Singer, in the general election.

In Florida’s Black-majority 20th District, which was redrawn this year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz finished ahead of four Black rivals in a crowded field, and will face Brent Andersen, an insurance broker, in November. Black leaders criticized Wasserman Schultz, a white 11-term congresswoman, for running in the district.

“She won against a crowded field, but she didn’t win with 50% of the vote,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center’s Washington office. “The open question remains: Is she the preferred candidate of African Americans? We’ll see in the general.”

Although these two districts lean slightly blue, data suggest that Republicans will be more competitive in these areas than they were in the 2024 congressional races, Cervas said. He added that this shows Florida’s redistricting efforts were mostly a success, likely adding at least one or two seats in the general election.

Alaska was more competitive than Democrats thought

Some Democratic Party leaders had initially ranked Alaska behind other states with the potential to flip a Senate seat. But they likely will make the Alaska race a higher priority after a strong showing Tuesday by former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, who topped the field in the primary against incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. It has been 11 years since Alaska last had a Democratic senator.

According to the New York Times, the Alaska Survey Research poll shows Peltola with a two-point lead heading to the general election.

Peltola has run as a centrist Democrat, attacking the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce and lack of resource development in Alaska, which is likely to have wide appeal in a state that Trump won in 2016, 2020 and 2024, but that has suffered in recent months from rising costs and job losses.

Three Trump endorsements fell short

Trump-endorsed incumbent Rep. Cory Mills — the subject of a House Committee Ethics probe stemming from accusations of assault by two women — lost his primary race in Florida’s 7th District to former television reporter Ryan Elijah, making him the 10th Trump-backed candidate to lose in a primary this year.

After the results were known, the president wrote in a Truth Social post: “I told Congressman Cory Mills of Florida, a friend of mine, to get out of the Race, but he wouldn’t listen. He thought he could win, so who can blame him?”

Trump had picked Catalina Lauf to replace Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, only to see her lose to Jim Schwartzel, a businessman-turned-politician. Donalds is the Republican nominee for governor, where he will face Democrat David Jolly, a former Republican House member.

Trump’s pick for Wyoming governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, was defeated handily by Republican state Sen. Eric Barlow.

California voters are more inclined to back progressives running for office than mainstream Democrats, a new poll found, though a marked generational divide separates those who favor each camp.

Registered Democratic voters over 65 were overwhelmingly more inclined to support a candidate identified as a mainstream Democrat, whereas more voters under 40 favored those more aligned with the party’s left wing, including democratic socialists.

The results, from a new poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times, illustrate the highly visible midterm-season debates unfolding within the Democratic Party over age, ideology and the party’s future.

“There’s particular frustration among the younger voting population,” said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. “Their views of mainstream Democrats are not that positive, and that’s a long-term problem, I think, for the Democratic Party.”

The poll asked voters about how they perceived candidates described as a progressive, democratic socialist, mainstream Democrat, Republican and MAGA supporter. Voters were asked whether each label made them more inclined or less inclined to back a given candidate, or if they believed there was not much difference or had no opinion.

Among all California voters, a candidate described as “progressive” drew the broadest support — besting both mainstream Democrats and Republicans, as well as democratic socialists and members of President Trump’s MAGA movement. At 40%, support for progressive candidates registered just two percentage points above support for democratic socialists and within the poll’s margin of error, though fewer people felt negatively toward progressives than democratic socialists.

Among registered Democrats, the survey found 60% said they would be inclined to support a candidate identified as progressive; 58% felt the same when asked about a democratic socialist and 48% about a mainstream party member.

The polling offers a glimpse into how California voters feel about democratic socialism, the brand of liberal politics popularized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).

The views among all California voters were split, with 38% saying they would be more inclined to support a candidate labeled as a democratic socialist and 38% saying they would be less inclined. That makes the concept both more polarizing and more popular than the idea of a mainstream Democrat.

“To us, it’s honestly an incredibly good thing to hear that by and large, California voters see democratic socialism as a preferable option,” said Misha Kesselman, who leads membership coordination at the California Democratic Socialists of America.

“Being only two percent behind a progressive Democrat is the perfect place for us to be and for our organization to organize from,” Kesselman added. “I don’t see this as our ceiling; this is a great floor for us to start running from.”

Notably, more voters, 36%, said they were less inclined to support a mainstream Democrat than those who said they’d be more inclined, 29%. Twenty-seven percent showed indifference, however, possibly demonstrating that most voters would be fine supporting them in a general election, said Christian Grose, a political science professor at the University of Southern California.

The results could reflect a shift in labeling as much as in politics, Grose said, noting that most California Democrats now refer to themselves as progressive, a term that was not as popular 20 years ago, regardless of policy differences.

“Progressive Democrat in California has really in some ways become a mainstream Democrat, and then ‘mainstream’ is often associated with Washington,” Grose said, referring to the more moderate party establishment.

As the two parties compete for control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, the rise of democratic socialist ideas within the Democratic party has set off a debate among left-leaning leaders and voters about how best to counter Trump’s cultural dominance, appeal to disillusioned voters and create a winning presidential strategy for 2028.

The split does not fully fall along generational lines, but it often overlaps with the growing push by some younger candidates to oust veteran lawmakers, a debate over experience and seniority versus fresh blood.

Republicans have used the phenomenon as a key line of attack, as Trump and others have labeled Democrats as communists and extremists. In recent weeks, Trump argued that Democrats want to “destroy the traditional American way of life.”

“Sadly, young people have not been taught the truth about socialism and communism. It’s a dangerous road, and this is one of our efforts to make sure people know that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Saturday on Fox News, after launching a website last week dedicated to the idea that socialism and communism have failed.

Meanwhile, many establishment Democrats fear that a far-left candidate would be unable to win a general presidential election and worry a swing in that direction could jeopardize the party’s chances in 2028. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he does not support the Democratic Socialists of America agenda, further underscoring internal divisions.

Democratic socialism generally centers on an anti-capitalist agenda, including higher taxes for the wealthy and universal healthcare. Many progressive candidates support policy ideas backed by socialists but do not identify themselves as such.

A handful of high-profile progressive primary wins against Democrats backed by the establishment has supercharged the conversation in recent weeks, including this month in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, where progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated a moderate opponent.

But progressives have lost elsewhere, including in Wisconsin, where democratic socialist Francesca Hong last week was defeated in the gubernatorial primary by David Crowley, the more moderate Milwaukee County executive.

California was not host to that type of showdown this year, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, though progressive by national standards, was viewed by many left-leaning voters as a safer or more moderate primary choice. He faces Republican Steve Hilton in November.

In Los Angeles, however, the mayor’s race between incumbent Democrat Karen Bass and democratic socialist Nithya Raman is set to draw national attention. A handful of progressive candidates also advanced in House races, including Randy Villegas, who is challenging Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford); Mai Vang, challenging Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento); and Angela Gonzales-Torres, challenging Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). Vang identifies as a democratic socialist.

The new polling also showed a generational divide among Republican voters: A higher share of older voters than younger said they would be more inclined to back a MAGA supporter, though all ages favored the Republican category over MAGA.

Seventy percent of GOP voters said a Republican label would make them more inclined to support a candidate, and 46% said the same of a MAGA label. Sixteen percent said they would be less inclined to vote for a candidate with a MAGA label and 29% said it didn’t make much difference.

Among California voters who eschew both the Democratic and Republican parties, either registered as no party preference or with other parties, a progressive candidate drew the most favorable reaction, but they also showed more support for a democratic socialist than a mainstream Democrat.

Those voters were not positively inclined toward right-leaning candidates, with 15% responding favorably to Republicans and 7% to MAGA.

In California, Democrats account for nearly 45% of all registered voters, compared to 25% who are Republican and almost 23% who don’t belong to either party, according the California Secretary of State’s office.

Whether voters’ shifting preferences for the progressive or democratic socialist labels translate into any different policy action from those who are elected is an open question, Grose said.

“The labels are changing things… but it’s not clear yet if it’s changing the actual ideology of voters and elected officials,” Grose said. “What the elected officials do in office who are Democrats, that remains to be seen.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Across 250 years, only three elected governors out of thousands have been Black — all Democrats and all men, including current Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

But Moore could soon have company.

With Florida Republicans nominating U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds on Tuesday, there are seven Black major party gubernatorial nominees in addition to Moore — men and women, Democrats and Republicans — on November ballots.

“We do have a unique moment here,” said Moore, who recently became chair of the National Governors Association. He often says that his historic status is “not an applause line” but instead represents a bigger challenge that this country is still looking to overcome.

The Black nominees typically do not focus on the history at stake, instead emphasizing their experience and policy proposals.

“Florida is a great meritocracy in America,” Donalds told reporters Tuesday night after not mentioning his race at all in his victory speech. “I’ll let you guys write about that,” he added.

But many said that more reflective representation matters given the nation’s history, from slavery to Jim Crow and the lingering effects.

“It’s not a secret that some issues in the African American community get ignored and don’t have a voice,” said Aaron Ford, Nevada’s first Black attorney general and now the Democratic nominee for governor. Ford said he brings a focus to issues ranging from voting rights and civil rights to the economy.

Republican Lisa Demuth said she “has never led with any type of identity politics” as Minnesota’s first Black House speaker and now her party’s nominee for governor. “But I recognize the historic state we are in right now,” she said. Michigan Republicans also chose U.S. Rep. John James, who is Black, as their gubernatorial nominee.

Former New York Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat who was not elected but ascended when Eliot Spitzer resigned in 2008, celebrated that the slate crosses party lines. “This is one day when maybe the Democrats and Republicans could stand in front of a statue of George Washington and let him know that we’re finally getting it right,” he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, emphasized that their Black candidates – who also include Keisha Lance Bottoms in Georgia, Jermaine Johnson in South Carolina and David Crowley in Wisconsin – are especially important after the U.S. Supreme Cour t cleared the way for states to redraw legislative districts that are majority or plurality nonwhite. That was compounded by President Trump’s attacks on diversity initiatives and push to rewrite how the U.S. tells its history of the slave trade and Jim Crow segregation.

“Governors, in many ways, are becoming the last lines of defense against what we’re seeing in Washington,” Moore said.

A challenge for Black politicians, even more so than reaching the U.S. Senate

Karen Finney, who helped push Democrat Joe Biden to select a Black woman as his vice presidential running mate, said Black politicians often are the first and loudest advocates on issues that acutely affect Black constituents. She and others cited health disparities such as maternal and infant mortality and sickle cell disease, and Finney noted that an inflationary economy hits harder in Black communities that, on average, have lower income and net worth than the wider population.

She said it is important for legislators to raise those matters and even more impactful when it is an executive.

“These are people who have the power to shape our lives, and they shape the agenda,” Finney said.

But the governor’s seat has been notoriously hard for Black politicians to reach, even more difficult than the U.S. Senate. Democrat Douglas Wilder of Virginia took office in 1990 as the nation’s first elected Black governor.

“I didn’t become Maryland’s first Black governor because the Democratic Party said, ‘I think it’s time for us to put Wes Moore up in the seat’,” Moore said. “I had to run against the party.”

“I don’t think that the party is doing enough,” Moore added, specifically bemoaning a “negligence” in Southern states where Black voters anchor Democrats’ base.

Stacey Abrams, who lost two Georgia governor’s races, recalled white Democratic power players raising money for her primary opponent in 2018, although she disputed that explicit racism was the issue.

“We do what we’ve done because it’s what we did,” she said. “Black women have not been executives, and the absence of that proof point becomes a self-reinforcing philosophy.”

This time, she noted, Bottoms already has been an executive as mayor of Atlanta.

Democrats and Republicans talk about ‘identity politics’ differently

In Minnesota, history will be made in November when the state elects its first female governor as Demuth competes against Democrat Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. senator. Demuth said she looks forward to a day when such distinctions seem less notable.

“One of the things that I really do look forward to is where it’s already done, where it no longer makes history,” she said. “So I think of young women, little girls that are looking at you, could I ever be governor of Minnesota? I hope when I win, they’re able to look at point to that and say she’s already done it.”

In Georgia, Bottoms told the National Association of Black Journalists last week that she does not “give a lot of talk … about the historical nature” of her campaign. Yet she notes her family’s Georgia ties go “back at least five generations through a plantation in Crawfordville” and that her grandfather had to “walk through these back doors” when he moved to Atlanta. She never mentioned slavery or segregation but said her ancestry “is always present with me.”

Abrams, who has campaigned for Bottoms and other Democrats this year, was more direct, arguing that all politics is identity politics of some kind — and that Republicans’ version is simply more coded.

“When your Constitution specifically strips a race of its humanity, you cannot then later on say identity doesn’t matter and has no effect, and we’ve spent 250 years trying to reckon with that identity” with social, political and legal fights, she continued. “So, it’s deeply disingenuous, if not woefully naive, to say that identity does not matter.”

Race shapes many decisions, but not all of them

Deval Patrick, whose tenure in Massachusetts overlapped with Paterson’s in New York, said his race mattered especially to his Black constituents and what they wanted from him. It was “just different than the expectations of my predecessors,” he said, recalling criticism after he did not visit a Boston neighborhood where a teenager had been killed by gun violence.

“His mother was on the news grieving, and at some point she said while the cameras were rolling, where is Gov. Patrick?” he said. “Nobody had ever asked one of my predecessors to come to a crime scene in a neighborhood. Never.”

In Nevada, Ford said being governor still means recognizing how many core issues – jobs, housing and healthcare – cross demographic lines.

“It could be a white man, a Latino woman. It could be a person urban, suburban or rural Nevada. It could be someone from northern Nevada, southern Nevada. These are the issues that are important to them,” he said.

Patrick, who talks regularly with Ford and Moore, agreed, saying that is not just how a governor does the job, but how a candidate wins it in the first place.

“The successful candidates are the ones who present themselves as candidates for everyone,” he said, “and not candidates for just some.”

Barrow and Sloan write for the Associated Press. Sloan reported from Washington.

Profile

RON UNZ

* Born: Sept. 20, 1961, Los Angeles

* Residence: Palo Alto

* Current position: Full-time candidate for governor, on leave from managing his small software company.

* Education: Bachelor’s degrees in physics and history, Harvard University. Phi Beta Kappa. Recipient of a Churchill Science Fellowship to Cambridge University in England, where he studied quantum gravitation under Stephen Hawking.

* Career highlights: In the late 1980s, Unz took a leave of absence from Stanford University, where he was enrolled in a Ph.D. program in theoretical physics. He worked as an associate at a New York City mortgage finance company. In 1988, he founded Wall Street Analytics Inc., a financial services software company.

* Family: Unmarried

The Record

Ron Unz has no public record and brings an unusual, if not unique, background to his quest for California’s top public office. He has a strong record of academic and intellectual achievement. His IQ has been estimated at 214–what one expert calls “one in a million”–and as a teen-ager he won first place in the national Westinghouse talent search competition for a paper on black holes. He is a physicist as well as an expert on the Spartan naval empire.

After working for a New York City mortgage finance company, Unz founded his own small firm that sells specialized computer programs to Wall Street firms. The firm has become highly successful during the last six years and has made Unz a wealthy man.

Although he has no political experience, he says he has long had an interest in politics and has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative think tanks and causes.

Unz says his years in the business world have prepared him well to govern California. “In terms of the sectors of the American economy that create wealth, I have more experience than the other four candidates together, times a factor of a few,” he said.

The Speech: In His Own Words

I believe that the Republican Party stands for clear principles and firm ideas–smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and traditional values–and that Pete Wilson stands for nothing except his political ambition.

Over the past three years, Pete Wilson and the Democrats have enacted the largest state tax increase in American history, deepening our recession and destroying jobs. Pete Wilson and the Democrats have led our Golden State to the brink of ruin. A choice between Pete Wilson and the Democrats means no choice at all for the people of California.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I have not abandoned the mainstream of the Republican Party . . . and its basic principles. . . . Under Ronald Reagan, these were the ideas which swept the nation and the world. I am the Republican candidate for governor.

Unlike Pete Wilson, my affiliation with the Republican Party is not hereditary: I come from a family of Democrats. But when that former Democrat Ronald Reagan transformed the Republican Party into the party of the ordinary working people of America, it became my party.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I didn’t attend an elite prep school, but received my education in the public schools of Los Angeles, back when they still provided an outstanding education for all of our children, rich and poor alike. It was this education which provided me with the tools of opportunity I needed to achieve economic success. But today, I am disgusted by the decay of our school system.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I don’t believe we should raise taxes again and again, until our entrepreneurs and small businesses are faced with some of the highest tax rates in America, driving our jobs and prosperity to other states. . . .

Unlike Pete Wilson, who has been on government and political payrolls for almost 30 years as a lifelong career politician, I come from the private business sector, the part of our economy which actually creates the wealth, provides the jobs and pays the taxes. I understand the value of money and the long hours required to earn it. I reject the waste that is routinely accepted by the special interest politicians who don’t understand what it’s like to earn a living in the real world.

Unlike Pete Wilson, who has little or no comprehension of the industries of tomorrow, I come from a scientific and technological background. I know that California’s future prosperity cannot be based merely upon jobs to build and maintain Pete Wilson’s endless array of future prisons.

I know that the high-technology industries of tomorrow such as computers, telecommunications, biotechnology and the entertainment industry can be the foundation of California’s prosperity. I see that the widespread adoption of telecommuting could make our freeway traffic jams a thing of the past. . . .

My grandparents came to California in the 1920s and 1930s as poor European immigrants, willing to work hard to provide a better life for their children.

I am a native-born Californian who remembers the hope and optimism and endless sense of possibility which the California Dream once meant to us. Our state has the finest climate, enormous natural beauty, and tremendous scientific and technological resources unequaled any place in the world.

The primary obstacle on our road to recovery is the deep failure of our own overgrown state government. Join with me in overcoming this one obstacle, and together we can restore the Golden State which we all remember.