WASHINGTON — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani presented President Trump with a mock newspaper front page during a visit to the White House on Thursday to discuss massive new housing investments in the city.
It’s a tactic designed to appeal to Trump, who is keenly aware of his media coverage and, aside from being an avid viewer of cable news, is known to voraciously consume coverage in the local New York City publications. The Republican president and Democratic mayor have maintained a cordial relationship since their first meeting last fall.
Anna Bahr, Mamdani’s communications director, said the mayor’s team created a mock front page and headlines for Trump to look at and demonstrate what kind of reaction new federal housing investments could bring. The mock New York Daily News front page says “Trump to City: Let’s Build” — a riff on the famous 1975 cover that read “Ford to City: Drop Dead,” referring to Gerald Ford’s vow to veto financial assistance to the city.
The mayor posted the photo of their meeting, featuring the front pages, to his social media page.
Mamdani’s office declined to elaborate on the mayor’s housing proposal, but Bahr said Trump was “very enthusiastic” about it. When Trump and Mamdani last met in November, the president encouraged Mamdani to return to him with an idea to build big things together in New York City, Bahr said.
Though Trump repeatedly maligned Mamdani as a “communist” as he ran for New York City mayor, the president appeared charmed by him after their one-on-one meeting at the White House in November.
At the meeting on Thursday – which was previously unannounced and lasted for about an hour – Mamdani also brought up the detainment of Ellie Aghayeva, a Columbia University student from Azerbaijan who was arrested earlier Thursday by federal immigration agents.
The agents had accessed a campus residence by claiming they were searching for a “missing person,” according to Aghayeva’s attorneys and Columbia’s president. As he met with Trump, Mamdani urged Trump to consider releasing her.
In a phone call not long after their White House meeting, Trump told the mayor that Aghayeva would be released. Mamdani also gave White House chief of staff Susie Wiles a list of four other students targeted by federal authorities and asked for the administration’s help with them.
The four students are Mahmoud Khalil, Yunseo Chung, Mohsen Mahdawi and Leqaa Kordia, who were all detained for their roles in pro-Palestinian protests. Of the four, only Kordia remains in custody, although all cases are proceeding through the courts.
D4vd is the “target” of a Los Angeles County criminal jury investigation into the death of a teenage girl. The singer’s star was on the rise, with a global tour in his future, before the discovery of the girl’s remains in the front trunk of his Tesla.
The singer, whose real name is David Burke, has been the subject of the probe since November, months after the dismembered body of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez was found in the car after it was towed off a street in Hollywood.
According to a grand jury subpoena seeking to have Burke’s father, mother and brother testify in L.A., the musician is described as “Target David Burke,” who may have committed a criminal offense in California, “to wit: One count of Murder.”
The document was part of a legal challenge to the subpoenas filed by the singer’s family in Texas. The newly unsealed documents reveal that, when Los Angeles police opened up the Tesla trunk, they found “a black cadaver bag covered with insects and a strong odor of decay” inside. Investigators had been granted a search warrant to look in the vehicle Sept. 8 after a tow yard worker noticed a rotting smell emanating from the vehicle.
According to the document, detectives partially unzipped the bag and found “a decomposed head and torso.”
Criminalists and medical examiners then processed the body.
“Upon removing the cadaver bag from the front storage compartment, it was discovered the arms and legs had been severed from the body,” the subpoenas noted. “A second black bag was discovered underneath the cadaver bag. Upon opening the second bag, the dismembered body parts were discovered.”
Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman issued the subpoenas on Jan. 15, with Superior Court judge Craig Richman approving them.
The First Court of Appeals in Texas on Feb. 9 denied petitions from the three Burke family members to ignore the subpoenas.
In November, prosecutors began presenting evidence to a grand jury, described at the time as an investigative grand jury, according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case with the media.
Since then, numerous witnesses have been called in to testify, among those, one of the musician’s managers. A friend of D4vd, Neo Langston, was arrested in Montana after ignoring a subpoena and was recently forced to return to L.A. to testify.
In a Texas appeals court footnote, the court refers specifically to the singer’s true name. The court states that the “underlying case” is “The People of the State of California v. David Burke,” pending in the 506th District Court of Waller County, Texas, with Judge Gary W. Chaney presiding. There is no public case with that name, but grand jury proceedings are confidential.
The singer’s father, Dawud, mother, Colleen, and brother, Caleb, reside in Texas, according to court records. Lawyers for the trio could not be reached for comment.
Detectives have spent months investigating the circumstances surrounding the girl’s death, as well as her relationship with D4vd.
His Tesla sat abandoned on a street in the Hollywood Hills for several weeks — potentially months — before its removal.
L.A. Police Capt. Scot Williams, who leads the Robbery-Homicide Division, said the girl had been “dead for at least several weeks.” Williams said the body had not been decapitated or frozen, as some news outlets have reported.
Detectives determined that the Tesla had been parked on Bluebird Avenue since late July — around the time D4vd began a national tour. The tour was canceled soon after the death investigation drew worldwide media attention.
SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the California Democratic Party, along with liberal activists and loyal power brokers, are openly expressing fear that their crowded field of candidates running for governor may splinter the vote and open the door to a surprise Republican victory in November.
Because of those concerns, the Democrats lagging at the bottom of the pack are being urged to drop out of the race to ensure the party’s political dominance in statewide elections survives the 2026 election.
“California Democrats are prepared to do what’s required,” state party chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention on Friday. “We are ready and willing and able to do what’s required … to ensure we have a strong candidate coming out of the primary to do what’s required in November.”
Nine prominent Democrats are running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, compared to two top GOP candidates, and could divide the Democratic electorate enough that the two Republicans could receive the most votes in the June primary and advance to the November election. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.
Hicks was deferential to the Democratic candidates who have long-served in public office, and have compelling personal tales and the experience to take the helm of the state. But he said there is the harsh political reality that a viable candidate needs to raise an enormous amount of money to have a winning campaign in a state of 23.1 million registered voters and some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.
The party, its allies and the candidates themselves have a “collective commitment to ensuring we do not see a Republican elected [for governor],” Hicks said.
While Hicks and other party leaders did not publicly name the candidates who ought to leave the race, among the candidates lagging in the polls are state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.
Democratic voters vastly outnumber the number of registered Republicans in the state, and no Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.
But given the sprawling field of gubernatorial candidates, the lack of a clear front-runner and the state’s unique primary system, the race appears up for grabs. According to an average of the most recent opinion polls, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — both Republicans — are tied for first place, according to Real Clear Politics. Each received the support of 15.5% of voters. The top Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, Calif., was backed by 12.5%.
In 2012, Republicans finished in first and second place in the race for a San Bernardino County congressional district — despite Democrats having a solid edge in voter registration. The four Democrats running for the seat split the vote, opening the door for a victory by GOP Rep. Gary Miller. Pete Aguilar, one of the Democrats who lost in the primary, went on to win that seat in 2014 and has served in Congress ever since.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Friday pushed back at the fears that two Republicans will win the top two gubernatorial spots in June.
“That’s not going to happen,” she said in an interview after speaking at a young Democrats’ reception. “And everything that you should know about the Democrats this year is we are unified. As I say, our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. And everybody knows that there’s too much at stake.”
However, the scenario has prompted a cross section of the typically fractious party to unite behind the belief the field must shrink, whether by candidates’ choice or through pressure.
Jodi Hicks, the leader of Planned Parenthood’s California operations, said that the organization is laser-focused on congressional races, but having two Republican gubernatorial candidates “would be nothing short of devastating.”
“We have not weighed in on the governor’s race but we are paying close attention to whether this comes to play, and whether or not we do decide to weigh in and make sure that doesn’t happen,” she said.
Newsom and legislative Democrats have tried to buffer the massive federal funding cuts to reproductive care. A November election with two Republicans on the gubernatorial ballot would eliminate a key partner in Sacramento, and could impact turnout in down-ballot congressional and legislative races.
“A top-two Republican [race] would certainly have dire consequences for the midterm battle and to the governor’s office,” Jodi Hicks said.
Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of California Federation of Labor Unions, noted that her organization’s endorsement process begins on Tuesday.
“I think we are going to have some pretty honest discussions with candidates about their individual paths and where they are,” she said. “They’re all great candidates, so many of them are really good folks. But it’s starting to get to be that time.”
She expects the field to begin to thin in the coming days and weeks.
The conversation went beyond party leaders, taking place among delegates such as Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside.
“My goal at the convention, it’s not necessarily that the party coalesces around one particular candidate, but more, this is a test to see what candidates have a level of support that they can mount a successful campaign,” said the 29-year-old, who said he hopes to see some candidates drop out after the weekend.
“Am I concerned long term that [a top-two Republican runoff] could be a thing? Yes and no,” he said “I’m not concerned that we’re not going to solve this problem before the primary, but I do think we need to start getting serious about, ‘We need to solve this problem soon.’”
Not everyone agreed.
Tim Paulson, a San Francisco Democrat who supports Yee, called efforts to push people out of the race “preemptive disqualification.”
“This is nothing but scare tactics to get people out of the race,” he said. “This is still a vibrant primary. Nobody knows who the front-runner is yet.”
Bob Galemmo, 71, countered that many people did not believe Donald Trump would be elected president in 2016 and fears two Republicans could advance to the general election.
“You should never say never,” he said. “If we could get down to like four or five [candidates], that would be helpful.”
The efforts had already began.
RL Miller, the chair of the state Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, said Yee ought to drop out.
Yee, “who is at the bottom of the polls, needs to be taking a good long look at whether she is serving the party or being selfish by staying in the race,” Miller said.
Yee, a former state party vice chair, pushed back forcefully, saying pressure to drop out of the race “would just be undemocratic.”
“First of all, I’ve served this party for a long time. I don’t do it out of selfishness, by any means,” she said at a Saturday gathering where she provided breakfast burritos to delegates. “But I’ll just say this — the race is wide open.”
Yee‘s campaign manager noted that 40% of voters are undecided, and the candidate said no one has asked her directly to exit the race, but that someone started a rumor a month or two ago that she was going to drop out and run for insurance commissioner instead.
“I’m not dropping out, and I don’t think any candidate should go out,” Yee said.
Calderon said Swalwell had urged him to get out of the race.
Calderon noted the largest group of voters is still undecided and defended staying in the race to try to reach those voters after speaking at a gubernatorial forum at the Commonwealth Club on Friday
“I stay very consistent in that 1 to 3% range,” he joked. “But my challenge is access to resources and visibility, which is something that could change within a day with the right backing and support.”
Swalwell and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
While President Trump is busy working through his checklist for sabotaging the midterm elections, Republicans are already concocting the political equivalent of a shady insurance policy — the kind someone takes out the day before the house catches fire.
I’ll save you some time and explain that the drubbing Republicans are about to endure won’t be the result of Trump or his policies. Instead, it will be because the midterm elections were rigged for the Democrats. Or at least these claims are the GOP spin that’s already in progress.
The predicate is being laid. “They want illegals to vote,” House Speaker Mike Johnson recently declared. “That’s why they opened the border wide for four years under Biden and Harris and allowed in all these dangerous people. It was a means to an end. The end is maintaining their own power,” Johnson continued.
To prevent this, Republicans have invented a MacGuffin: the SAVE America Act — a plot device Republicans have introduced primarily to drive the story forward.
That’s not to say the legislation would be meaningless. The SAVE America act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, eliminate mail-only registrations, mandate photo ID nationwide and force states to send voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security.
Some of these things (like requiring voter ID) are popular and even arguably salutary. But in light of recent events — say, Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results — any effort by Trump to nationalize or otherwise meddle in our election process should be met with immediate alarm.
Still, it is highly unlikely that any of these new tools would actually stem the tide of the rising blue wave that is poised to devour Republicans this November.
And to the degree there would be impediments to voter registration (there is worry that women who changed their names after getting married would be disenfranchised), the electoral results of making it harder to register to vote would largely affect future elections after this year — and these provisions wouldn’t solely hurt Democratic voters.
Regardless, this is all likely a moot point. Despite passing the House, it’s hard to imagine this bill can garner the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the Senate (and it doesn’t seem likely there’d be enough votes to nuke the filibuster).
This raises an interesting question: Why invest so much time and energy in a bill that seems destined to fail — and that, even if it did pass, would likely not alter even the closest of November’s midterm elections?
Because the bill isn’t really about passing policy. It’s about narrative control.
The SAVE America Act serves three strategic purposes for Republicans:
It’s a comforting but false diagnosis for the midterms. Let’s face it: Trump isn’t going to admit that his policies have backfired or that his approval ratings are in the tank, and Republicans aren’t about to lay that at his feet. As Trump declared in 2020 (before a single vote was cast), “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” Trumpism cannot fail; it can only be failed.
Base mobilization through grievance. Just as caravans of migrants always seem to miraculously appear just before an election, threats of election rigging at least give Republicans something to scare Fox News voters about — a way to motivate via fear and outrage in an otherwise moribund midterm electorate.
Blame insurance. Despite being the establishment and controlling the entire federal government, Trump still gets to cast himself as the victim. And it won’t just be Democrats who get blamed for a midterm loss; there will also be a “stabbed in the back” excuse.
Scott Presler, a prominent right-wing activist championing this bill on Fox News, has already declared that unless the SAVE America Act passes, Republicans will lose both chambers of Congress. In a veiled threat to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), he recently asked, “Do you want to be remembered as the Senate Majority Leader that was responsible for ushering in the decline of the United States?”
They’re clearly playing a game, but is this game good for Republicans?
While it might seem shrewd to construct a boogeyman, Republicans risk eliminating the feedback loop on which healthy political parties rely.
When losses are blamed on cheating rather than voter sentiment, there’s no incentive to change your behavior, your policies or your candidates. So a party that voters have rejected will keep repeating the same dumb things, all while voters scratch their heads and wonder why they still haven’t gotten to the promised land.
Republicans might well reflect on Trump’s Republican Party as a party that had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”
And a party that cannot learn or adapt is a party that shouldn’t count on winning many elections in the future.
CAREFREE, Ariz. — Elizabeth H. paused recently outside the post office in this small, high-desert community, not far from where Easy Street meets Nonchalant Avenue.
She felt neither easy nor nonchalant.
“I think the climate imposed by the Trump administration is really sad and scary,” said Elizabeth, who asked to withhold her last name to avoid being attacked for the views she expressed.
For his part, Anthony D. finds little not to like about President Trump. He, too, asked not to use his last name, as did several others who agreed to talk politics.
“We finally don’t have a— in office that are destroying our country and worrying about everybody else in the world,” said Anthony, 66, a plumbing contractor and proudly blunt-spoken New York native. (Just like Trump, he pointed out.) “I mean, his tariffs are working. The negotiations are working. I just see a lot of positive coming out of that office.”
“Most people don’t like what he says, but look what he’s doing,” Anthony said as the late-morning crowd trickled into an upscale North Scottsdale shopping center. “You can hate the person, but don’t hate the message. He’s trying to do the right thing.”
Here in central Arizona, a prime battleground in November’s midterm election, there is precious little agreement about Trump, his policies and motivations.
Supporters see the president turning things around after four disastrous years of Joe Biden. Critics see him turning the country into a place they barely recognize.
There is puzzlement on both sides.
Over what others believe. Over how others can possibly believe what they believe, see the things they see and perceive Trump the way they perceive him.
And although some are eager for the midterm elections as a way to corral the president — “I don’t think they should only impeach, I think they should imprison,” Brent Bond, a 59-year-old Scottsdale artist, said of his hopes for a Democratic Congress — others fear an end to Trump’s nearly unfettered reign.
Or that nothing will change, regardless of what happens at the polls in November.
“The fact is, Trump is going to keep Trumping until he’s done,” said Elizabeth H., who’s semiretired at age 55 after a career in financial services. “My only relief is that he’s an old, old man and he’s not going to be here forever.”
Brent Bond would like to see Trump imprisoned, not just impeached.
(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)
Arizona’s 1st Congressional District climbs from northeastern Phoenix to the mountainous heart of the Sonoran Desert. It takes in the affluent enclaves of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley and — where the urban sprawl finally yields to cactus, palo verde and other flora — Carefree and the Old West-themed Cave Creek.
It is the whitest, wealthiest and best-educated of Arizona’s nine congressional districts, home to numerous upscale resorts, major medical campuses and a large population of retirees comfortably settled in one of many gated communities.
In 2020, Biden carried the district 50% to 49%. Four years later, Trump beat Kamala Harris 51% to 48%.
(The Down Ballot, which crunches election data, rated Arizona’s 1st District the median of 435 congressional districts nationwide, meaning in 2024 half were redder on the presidential level and half were bluer.)
For more than a decade, the area has been represented by Republican Dave Schweikert, a local political fixture since the 1990s.
He’s had to fight hard for reelection in recent years as the district, like the whole of Arizona, has grown more competitive. Rather than run again, Schweikert announced he would give up his seat to try for governor. The result is a free-for-all and one of the relatively few toss-up House races anywhere in the country.
A passel of candidates is running and the result will help determine whether Democrats, who need to flip three seats, will seize control of the House in November.
Despite those high stakes, however, the race doesn’t seem to have generated much voter interest, at least not yet. In dozens of interviews across the district, it was the relentless Trump who drew the most attention, admiration and exasperation.
Moe Modjeski, a supporter, allowed as how the president “is no altar boy.”
Even so, “I’ll take his policies over someone that might be nice and polite,” said the 69-year-old Scottsdale resident, a financial advisor who cited the sky-scraping stock market as one example of Trump’s success. “I mean, gas is about half the price it was a year or two ago.”
“I lived through the ‘60s and 70s and can’t remember a time when I feared so much for the future of our country,” said Liz, a retired medical technologist.
She’ll vote for a Democrat in November — to put a check on Trump, not because the Carefree resident has great faith in the party or its direction.
“I wish the Dems would get it together and maybe we could get more of a centrist that could unite and not get hung up on some of these social issues,” she said. “There’s a lot of economic issues, bread-and-butter issues, and I think that’s why the Republicans won [in 2024], because of the problems with immigration and inflation.”
As a border state, Arizona has long been at the forefront of the political fight over immigration. It was here lawmakers passed — and opponents spent years battling — legislation that effectively turned police into immigration officers, requiring them to demand the papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally
Thomas Campbell, with Keegan and Guinness, blamed blue-state politicians for any overreach by ICE agents.
(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)
Now that aggressive approach has become national policy, which is fine by Thomas Campbell, a retired architect and staunch Trump backer. He blamed any enforcement overreach on blue-state lawmakers.
“For some reason, the Democrats have decided they want to side with the criminals, so they don’t allow their police departments to cooperate,” said Campbell, 72, who stopped outside Paradise Valley’s town hall while running errands with his Irish setters, Guinness and Keegan. “If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be any” controversy over ICE’s tactics.
But why, she wondered, are immigration agents scooping up honest taxpayers, parents with children born in the U.S. and others keeping on the straight and narrow?
“I think they’re going after the wrong people,” said the 76-year-old Scottsdale retiree as a friend, Lily, nodded in agreement. The two were sharing a bench in Scottsdale’s pueblo-inspired civic plaza, a nearby fountain burbling in the 80-degree sunshine.
“I think we need to look at our county jails, look at our city jails,” said Cornelison, who made her living selling large appliances. “How many illegal immigrants are, say, in Florence, which is our state prison? Send them back. Don’t go after Mr. Gonzalez who’s doing my lawn. Empty out our prisons.”
Back at the North Scottsdale shopping center, Denise F. was walking Chase, her Shih Tzu, past a parking lot brimming with Teslas, Mercedes and Cadillac SUVs.
The 73-year-old voted for Trump because she couldn’t abide Harris. But she’s disgusted with the president.
“I don’t like the division in the country. I think Trump thinks he’s a king,” said Denise, a retired banker. “He’s poking the bear with Venezuela and Greenland, Iran” — she poked the air as she named each country — “to see who he can engage in a possible war, which is not the way I think the United States should be.”
As Denise was finishing up, Anthony D., her friend and neighbor, strolled up and joined the conversation, offering his laudatory view of the president. “Trump’s a businessman and he’s running the country like a business,” Anthony said, as Denise looked on impassively.
“How did I do?” he asked after saying his piece.
“Great,” Denise replied amiably and the two walked off together, Chase between them.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) for California governor, the Swalwell campaign and a Schiff spokesperson said Monday.
Schiff, one of the state’s most prominent Democrats, previously served with Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee, where they riled Republicans by investigating President Trump during his first term.
They also both worked to impeach Trump during his first term, with Schiff serving as the lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment and Swalwell as a manager of Trump’s second impeachment.
Schiff, in a statement, said Swalwell “has the vision and strength to take on our state’s biggest challenges and make real progress, from lowering costs for families to protecting our democracy from Donald Trump.”
“Congressman Swalwell and I worked together to investigate Trump during his first presidency, and Eric played a leadership role in the impeachment trial after the President incited a violent mob to attack the capitol on January 6th,” Schiff said. “What I saw then, and what I know now, is that Eric is fully prepared to get things done and deliver for the Golden State, even as he will fight to protect our values, rights and freedoms.”
Swalwell announced in November his bid to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is termed out next year — entering a crowded field of candidates without a clear front-runner.
Both Swalwell and Schiff have been targeted by Trump and the Trump administration with allegations of committing mortgage fraud. They have both denied those accusations — calling them part of a political retribution campaign against Trump’s critics and chief political opponents.
Swalwell has sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte over the accusations, accusing him of of criminally misusing government databases to target Trump’s political opponents.
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Lauren Betts had 16 points, 16 rebounds, five assists and three blocks to help No. 2 UCLA hold off No. 8 Michigan for a 69-66 win on Sunday.
The Wolverines trailed by 11 points with less than two minutes left and ended the game with a chance to tie the score, Syla Swords shot an airball on a three-pointer with 2.2 seconds left.
UCLA (23-1, 13-0 Big Ten) took a two-game lead over Michigan (20-4, 11-2) in the conference with its 17th straight victory since losing to No. 4 Texas in November.
The Bruins outscored Michigan by 14 over the second and third quarters and finished with their NCAA-best ninth win over an AP Top 25 team.
The Wolverines’ school-record nine-game winning streak in Big Ten games was snapped by a big and experienced team that plays stifling defense and is led by a 6-foot-7 preseason All-America center who does it all.
UCLA players wear pink basketball shoes to support Breast Cancer Awareness on Sunday.
(Lon Horwedel / Associated Press)
Betts was eight of 17 from the field, grabbed rebounds at both ends of the court, set up teammates for shots after drawing double teams and used her size to block or alter shots.
Her surrounding cast is talented, too.
UCLA’s Kiki Rice scored 20, Gabriela Jaquez had 13 and Gianna Kneepkens scored 12.
Michigan’s Olivia Olson had 20 points, Mila Holloway had 15 and Te’Yala Delfosse added 10. Swords was limited to eight points, missing 10 of 13 shots.
The highly anticipated matchup drew a season-high 6,108 crowd to Crisler Center a few hours before the Super Bowl.
Armed with that knowledge, you can now go out and win yourself a few bar bets by asking someone to name, say, even two of those running.
Meantime, fear not. Your friendly columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have surveyed the field, weighed the odds, pondered California’s long history and concluded … they have absolutely no clue what will happen in the June 2 primary, much less who’ll take the oath of office come next January.
Barabak: End homelessness. Elevate our public schools to first-class rank. Make housing and college tuition affordable. Eliminate crime. End disease and poverty. Put a chicken in every pot. Make pigs fly and celestial angels sing. And then, in their second year …
Seriously, there’s a pretty large gap between what voters would like to see happen and what a governor — any governor — can plausibly deliver. That said, if our next chief executive can help bring about meaningful improvement in just a few of those areas, pigs and angels excepted, I’d venture to say a goodly number of Californians would be pleased.
Broadly speaking, my sense when talking to voters is they want our next governor to push back on Trump and his most egregious excesses. But not as a means of raising their national profile or positioning themselves for a run at the White House. And not to the exclusion of bettering their lives by paying attention to the nitty and the gritty, like making housing and higher education more readily available and, yes, fixing potholes.
Chabria: All that is fair enough. As the mom of two teens, I’d especially like to see our university system be more affordable and accessible, so we all have our personal priorities. Let’s agree to this starting point: The new governor can’t just chew gum and walk. She or he must be able to eat a full lunch while running.
But so far, candidates haven’t had their policy positions break through to a big audience, state-focused or not — and many of them share broadly similar positions. Let’s look at the bits of daylight that separate them because, Republicans aside, there aren’t canyon-size differences among the many candidates.
San José Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest entry in the race, is attempting to position himself as a “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” centrist. How do you think that will go over with voters?
Barabak: You’re having me tiptoe uncomfortably close to the Make A Prediction Zone, which I assiduously avoid. As I’ve said before, I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know. (Many readers will doubtless question the underlying premise of the former if not the latter part of that statement.)
I think there is at least a potential for Mahan to tap into a desire among voters to lower the hostilities just a bit and ease up on our constant partisan war-footing.
You might not know it if you marinate in social media, or watch the political shout-fest shows where, as in nature, the loudest voices carry. But there are a great many people working two or even three jobs, ferrying their kids to soccer practice, worrying about paying their utility and doctor bills, caring for elderly parents or struggling in other ways to keep their heads above water. And they’re less captivated by the latest snappy clap-back on TikTok than looking for help dealing with the many challenges they face.
I was struck by something Katie Porter said when we recently sat down for a conversation in San Francisco. The former Orange County congresswoman can denigrate Trump with the best of ‘em. But she said, “I am very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”
California’s homelessness and affordability crises were years in the making, she noted, and need to be addressed as such.
I heard Antonio Villaraigosa suggest something similar in last week‘s gubernatorial debate, when the former Los Angeles mayor noted the state has spent billions of dollars in recent years trying to drastically reduce homelessness with, at best, middling results. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror,” he said.
That suggests to me Mahan is not the only candidate who appreciates that simply saying “Trump = Bad” over and over is not what voters want to hear.
Chabria: Certainly potholes and high electricity bills existed before Trump. But if the midterms don’t favor Democrats, the next governor will probably face a generational challenge to protect the civil rights of residents of this diverse state. It’s not about liking or disliking Trump, but ensuring that our governor has a plan if attacks on immigrants,the LBGTQ+ community and citizens in general grow worse.
I do think this will matter to voters — but I agree with you that candidates can’t simply rage against Trump. They have to offer some substance.
Porter, Swalwell and Becerra, who have the most national experience and could be expected to articulate that sort of vision, haven’t done much other than to commit to the fight. Steyer and Thurmond want to abolish ICE, which a governor couldn’t do. Mahan has said focusing on state policy is the best offense.
I don’t think this has to be a charisma-driven vision, which is what Newsom has so effectively offered. But it needs to bring resoluteness in a time of fear, which none of the candidates to my mind have been able to project so far.
But this all depends on election results in November. If Democrats take Congress and are able to exert a check to this terrible imbalance, then bring on the asphalt and fix the roads. I think a lot of what voters want from a governor won’t fully be known until after November.
Barabak: The criticism of this collective field is that it’s terminally boring, as if we’re looking to elect a stand-up comic, a chanteuse or a juggler. I mean, this is the home of Hollywood! Isn’t it the birthright of every California citizen to be endlessly entertained?
At least that’s what the pundits and political know-it-alls, stifling yawns as they constantly refresh their feeds on Bluesky or X, would have you believe.
Voters elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor — that’s two movie stars in the state’s 175-year history — and, from the way the state is often perceived, you’d think celebrity megawattage is one of the main prerequisites for a chief executive.
But if you look back, California has seen a lot more George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis types, which is to say bland-persona governors whom no one would mistake for box-office gold.
It seems to me no coincidence that Schwarzenegger, who arrived as a political novelty, was replaced by Jerry Brown, who was as politically tried-and-true as they come. That political pendulum never stops swinging.
Which suggests voters will be looking for someone less like our gallivanting, movie matinee governor and someone more inclined to keep their head down in Sacramento and focus on the state and its needs.
Who will that be? I wouldn’t wage a nickel trying to guess. Would you care to?
Chabria: I certainly don’t care to predict, but I’ll say this: We may not need or get another Terminator. But one of these candidates needs to put some pepper flakes in the paste if they want to break out of the pack.
