problem

With just over two weeks left until election day, Democrats can barely contain their glee.

Control of the House seems about to fall into their eager laps. Senate races in states that are normally cardinal red — Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Texas among them — have grown fiercely competitive.

And, for the first time since 2010, a Democrat may soon be sitting in the governor’s office in more than half the 50 states. As recently as 2017, just 16 of them had Democratic governors — the lowest number in nearly a century.

The party owes a big thank you to President Trump, whose political standing seems to be sinking, like a depth charge, lower by the day. The only question is how much damage he inflicts on fellow Republicans.

There are, however, exceptions to every political trend, outliers in every election, a contest that zigs when races just about everywhere else are zagging.

Oregon, that crunchy and damp citadel of Left Coast liberalism, hasn’t elected a Republican governor since President Reagan was midway through his first term. In 2024, Kamala Harris walloped Donald Trump by more than 14 percentage points, extending a decades-long Democratic presidential winning streak.

And yet the state’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, is on the defensive as she fights for a second term in November, burdened by a dismal approval rating and a sense that things have been pretty lousy in Oregon under her leadership.

The state “hasn’t thrived in the last decade, and certainly hasn’t thrived since COVID, the way other states have,” said John Horvick, one of Oregon’s leading independent pollsters.

Kotek, a former speaker of the state House — and a highly effective lawmaker in that role — made some very concrete promises.

“She was going to build 36,000 new homes. She was going to improve our educational outcomes and make improvements to behavioral health in the state,” Horvick said. “Voters give her poor marks on all those.”

Most notably, perhaps, the epidemic of homelessness — which has curdled Portland’s hipster image and agitated Oregonians more than just about any issue in recent years — hasn’t abated under Kotek, despite a promise to make the problem her top priority.

Gov. Tina Kotek speaks to opponents of data center development during a demonstration at the state Capitol in Salem, Ore., on Sept. 8, 2026.

(Alex Milan Tracy / Sipa USA / Associated Press)

The Democrat still remains the favorite to win reelection. Oregon’s gubernatorial races tend to be closer than presidential contests and voters have been shown a reluctance to heave their governor from office, even when they tell pollsters they’re not happy with the incumbent or the state of their state.

“We watch this movie every four years in Oregon, where it looks really, really close and then, in the end, the Democrat wins,” said Kari Chisholm, a political strategist in Portland.

That may happen again. But Kotek’s travails show the perils of incumbency this angry election season, even for a Democratic swimming with a blue tide.

Thirty-six states are electing governors in November. Most of the contests lean toward one party or the other, like in California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears a shoo-in to replace Gavin Newsom.

But a dozen races are at least somewhat competitive, including toss-ups in Georgia, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. All of the hardest-fought contests are in states that Trump carried in 2024 — several by double-digits — with Oregon being the lone exception.

Kotek, who’s been rated one of the least popular governors in America, is facing a rematch against Christine Drazan, a former GOP state House leader who now serves in the state Senate. In 2022, she lost narrowly lost to Kotek, 47% to 44%, in a three-way contest.

Unlike four years ago, Kotek has a gubernatorial record to defend and the case Drazan makes against her is succinct.

“Tina Kotek told Oregonians that she would solve the problems and challenges facing our state,” Drazan said in the candidates’ first debate this month. “She hasn’t.”

In a recent Fox News interview, Drazan elaborated.

“We have record high businesses that have gone out of business, bankruptcies, businesses that are leaving, family bankruptcies are at an all-time high,” Drazan said, exaggerating some. “Oregon is uniquely bad right now. It’s not a national issue, it’s here at home.”

Suggesting the state’s problems are indigenous is an obvious effort to lay responsibility on Kotek and absolve Trump, whose policies — ruinous tariffs, a reckless war, budget cuts — have slashed healthcare benefits, stoked inflation and driven fuel prices to all-time highs.

Further distancing herself from the Republican brand, Drazan has undergone a distinct makeover since winning the GOP primary in May. “Tough. Tested. Conservative,” is no longer the descriptive shorthand she uses on her campaign website. Now it’s “Mom. Public Servant. Champion for All.”

Drazan’s revised campaign biography also omits her opposition to various Democratic-backed policies, such as gun control, and her culture-warrior vow to “protect girls’ sports and keep men out of their locker rooms.” Instead, the Oregonian newspaper noted, her emphasis is now affordability and relatability.

Despite that, Kotek has continued wielding her sharpest-pronged political weapon, tying Drazan — an “out-of-touch MAGA extremist,” in her campaign’s parlance — to the unpopular president.

“I think we all know that there have been a lot of challenges facing our state and they’re still coming at us because of the confusion and disruption coming from Washington, D.C.,” Kotek said during the candidates’ third and final debate last week. “It’s just a fact. It’s upending who we are as a state and it is … making it harder for us to solve the problems that we have ahead of us.”

Passing the buck and pointing her finger is not exactly a message of triumph, uplift and achievement, but it may be enough to win Kotek a second term.

Grudgingly.

Gas prices are high. Diesel prices are higher — about $8 a gallon in California, $2 more than the national average.

For truckers, that’s a crisis. Their big rigs get about a paltry six miles to the gallon and filling their tanks in the Golden State now costs up to $2,500 a pop. For the guys who own a single truck or the small companies (which is the majority of trucking businesses), it can be hard to pass along those extra fuel costs to customers — which, as my colleague Nilesh Christoper wrote about, is causing a lot of pain in the industry.

Truckers everywhere are stomping mad, and it’s a problem for President Trump and Republicans heading into the midterms. Eventually, higher diesel prices are going to mean higher prices on the goods those trucks are transporting, and that’s an even bigger problem.

Trump has been throwing spaghetti at the wall trying out one limp solution after another to bring prices down — cutting taxes, brokering deals with Russia, telling us it’s just not a problem. But of course, it is.

Truck drivers fill they diesel tanks at United Oil in Long Beach on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

One Southern California energy expert has spent recent days in Washington, D.C., trying to convince the administration that the solution lies in California, in the vast oil reserves under our cities and farms that we largely leave untapped for environmental reasons. Environment aside, it’s a long-running and compelling (to some, anyway) argument that may have found its moment, meaning California might become Trump’s next solution — or at least scapegoat — to a costly problem.

More on that, but first, a recap of where we are.

The red dye ploy

Three thousand years ago in Trump time, but which I mean earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that allowed truckers to use red dye diesel as a way to lower costs.

Red dye diesel is, you guessed it, my genius readers, diesel that has been dyed red — to differentiate it from the stuff at truck stops. Farmers and other agricultural types are allowed to buy red dye diesel without certain taxes to use in tractors and other equipment that doesn’t run on our roads.

The Trump order allows truckers to buy red dye and defer paying the roughly 25-cent-per-gallon federal tax on it. So it’s not really saving them money, just delaying payment.

“It’s a small step, but nonetheless, it’s a positive step,” said Michael Mische, a professor at the USC Marshall School of Business whose conservative-leaning take on energy policy has often raised the ire of the Newsom administration.

President Trump signs an executive order to lower the cost of diesel fuel during a campaign rally on Oct. 5, 2026, in Grand Island, Neb.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

But there’s a problem with Trump’s red dye plan. States have their own laws about red dye diesel, and the feds can’t change them. So even if truckers could find a place to buy red dye diesel (again, not sold at regular gas stations), and even if the incentive of paying taxes later made the search seem worthwhile, they would often be breaking state laws.

Eric Sauer, chief executive of the California Trucking Assn., a trade group that advocates for the industry, said his group has been advising members not to use the crimson fuel until it’s clear that states are going to change their rules. Some, like Missouri, have. California has not.

Either way, Sauer said, allowing truckers to use diesel dyed red really doesn’t increase the overall supply, just shifts it around — which is unlikely to bring prices down.

“It’s still the same supply of diesel fuel out there,” Sauer said.

Global supply

The global supply of crude oil, has been, shall we say, negatively affected by our war with Iran. Despite Trump’s assurances that the conflict is winding down, two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked this week, highlighting that perhaps Iran is unaware the war is over. Fears of that conflict and others sent energy prices soaring even higher.

Faced with that unpleasant reality, Trump this week also announced he was lifting sanctions on diesel exports from Russia, a move that shocked his own party and most of the world.

The PCK petroleum refinery stands illuminated at twilight on April 28, 2026, in Schwedt, Germany. The refinery, which produces gasoline, diesel, kerosene and bitumen, receives 20% of its oil from Kazakhstan through the Russian Druzhba pipeline.

(Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

That deal could bring 36 million barrels of Russian diesel, at most, to American shores, which sounds like a lot until you realize we use about 4 million barrels of the stuff every day. So Trump essentially sold out Ukraine and demolished what was left of our European standing for nine days of diesel — an amount unlikely to lower prices.

In California, that’s especially true because, as UC Berkeley professor Aaron Smith points out, about 70% of our diesel “is actually not made from crude oil and coming from oil refineries. It’s made from vegetable oils and animal fats.”

Yes, the Golden State relies heavily on so-called renewable diesel that, Smith says, “introduces, I think, another wrinkle” when trying to lower costs.

California’s fault

But let’s get back to Mische, the USC professor. For years, he’s been arguing that California’s refusal to pump more oil should be viewed as a national security concern.

California actually imports the majority of its crude oil, more than 60% from other countries, and our refineries for a number of debated reasons have been closing. Our imports have been growing in recent years. We also have no pipelines connecting us to the rest of the U.S., unlike many other states. That means we can’t easily get oil except what’s shipped in through our ports.

At the same time, the West Coast with its many military installations is undeniably pivotal to national security. Mische argues that without adequate fuel reserves for a shortage — like during a war — our military readiness could be jeopardized. He wants to see California not only pump more, but for the federal government to store more of that California crude.

A train of tank cars enters the Chevron EL Segundo refinery, one of the largest petroleum processing facilities in California, on April 8, 2026. California imports approximately 75% of its crude oil, with nearly one-third of the crude supplied from the Middle East. Prices at the pump in the state are averaging $5.93 per gallon today amid the war in Iran.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

These arguments haven’t gained much traction in our heavily Democratic state, which has moved forcefully away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources in recent years and which has little interest in increasing drilling. But Mische and his colleagues may have found their moment.

Earlier this year, they wrote draft executive orders about California’s oil industry that he says the Trump administration is considering — one would attempt to force California to pump more oil using the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Trump has used that wartime act several times in the last few months, and Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance announced it would be used to expand production at a Texas oil refinery.

Mische said he spent last week in conversations with the administration on the proposed orders and is “confident” Trump will “issue additional executive orders under the Defense Production Act for California” by the end of the year.

Beyond the national security argument, such orders could please Trump because they do two things. First, if California pumps its own oil, it could free up some imported oil for other states, which could lower prices — though it would certainly take time and require more refinery capacity.

Second, and likely of more interest to the White House, it makes California — and Newsom — the villain for this sticky Republican problem. California will sue, of course, which would just help the Trump political narrative.

Kevin de León, a California Senate president emeritus and author of SB 100, California’s landmark 100% clean energy law, said he can easily envision Trump claiming that “we have lots of cheap oil in the United States that can lower your gas prices — but crazy lefty California is blocking us.”

Actually, it’s hard to imagine Trump not grabbing the chance to blame gas prices on the Golden State — or Newsom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: ‘Very few people out in the streets’: ICE surge rattles California’s Central Valley

The California angle: Justice Dept. demands California prove citizenship for lists of voters or withhold ballots

The L.A. Times Special: The U.S is in the death business. Newsom can change that, and win votes
Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Los Tigres Del Norte will perform this Saturday at Anaheim’s Honda Center. Ahead of rocking the Pond with its classic hits, the famed norteño band brought its signature sound and activism to NPR’s Tiny Desk Concert. The performance closed out the series’ Hispanic Heritage Month celebration, dubbed as “El Tiny.”

Composed of the Hernández brothers (Jorge, Hernán, Eduardo and Luis) and cousin Óscar Lara, Los Tigres Del Norte was founded in the late 1960s in the Sinaloan town of Rosa Morada and settled in San José. It has sold millions of records worldwide with songs about the drug trade, unrequited love and immigrant life in this country.

That theme of immigrant struggle within the U.S. was top of mind when the group performed at NPR’s Washington, D.C., offices.

The group was recently honored by the city of Minneapolis in September for defending the rights of immigrant communities for decades, and for standing in solidarity with the city following the large-scale immigration enforcement campaign that took place there earlier this year. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey proclaimed Sept. 9 Los Tigres del Norte Day.

“[Following the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids], they told the people of Minneapolis, the Latino American community that we are one, that we are united and that we’re going to do everything possible for the people that we love,” Frey said in a September news conference.

Los Tigres’ director and lead vocalist Jorge Hernández told The Times the honor came as a surprise to the group, who was in town for the 39th annual Hispanic Heritage Awards to present the people of Minnesota with the Humanitarian Award for their collective acts of solidarity with the immigrant community throughout the ICE raids.

The frontman said he was humbled by the action and was touched to spend time with members of the Minneapolis community who worked on the front lines during the ICE surge.

“There were Latinos present who set an example for how to support people in [a time of chaos],” Hernández said. “Those who were documented brought food to families who were undocumented so that they didn’t have to go outside to face the problems that were made possible due to [the Trump administration]. It’s because of action like those that we showed up for the city.”

Immediately after its time in Minnesota, the band flew out to film the Tiny Desk set.

The performance was a long time coming, according to Hernández.

“It was something beautiful and historic for us which should’ve happened 10 to 15 years ago,” he said, blaming conflicting schedules for the delay.

Though postponed, the 73-year-old musician knew the band’s messages would land with as much timeliness as ever.

In his introduction for Los Tigres Del Norte, NPR’s “Alt.Latino” host and “El Tiny” coordinator Felix Contreras spoke about why he wanted the band to perform as part of Tiny Desk’s month-long celebration of Latinidad.

“Our community is under attack and it’s not the first time … and it takes away our humanity,” Contreras said before Los Tigres kicked off the set with their hit “Somos mas Americanos.” “And for as long as I can remember, these gentlemen have been giving us back our humanity.”

Opening with the 2001 track was notable as the song flips jingoist U.S. narratives about who can call themselves American. The lyrics assert that Mexicans are more American than “gringos” and highlight how a large swath of the U.S. once belonged to Mexico.

Los Tigres let their songs do all the talking as they played straight through a series of tunes from across several decades, including 1995’s “Golpes en el Corazón,” 1997’s “Quiero Volar Contigo,” 1989’s “Ni Parientes Somos” and the 1986’s bittersweet single “La Puerta Negra.”

Hernández said the group wanted to use the platform to bring further awareness to the struggles immigrants continue to face in this country with an audience that notably skews more American than Los Tigres is accustomed to.

“We performed songs that talk about the problematic systems [in the U.S.] that have been around for years, but that are right now worse than ever before,” Hernández said. “The songs we sang [for Tiny Desk] have a lot to do with our society. I hope the wider public can listen to it and translate the songs to English so that they can connect to the lyrics.”

He said he hopes that the band can set an example for younger people that political messaging through music can empower artists, not hinder them.

“We’ve been singing songs since the ’70s about immigration and problems our community faces,” Hernández said. “As an artist, if you see a problem that affects your community, no matter how much you ignore it, you must realize that you are an active participant. You can’t stay quiet, your songs should talk about your problems so that through your work you can connect with and inform people.”

One thing that has continued to surprise and inspire Hernández over the last few years is seeing younger generations of fans celebrate his group’s music.

“They are the future and we sing our songs to them so that they can hear about the problems in our community that have existed and that persist,” he said. “At some point in life you will face big problems and it will be important that you know your history, what you stand for and how to defend yourself. We want to help people know their rights and be prepared to know how to act in difficult times like right now.”

A quick recap of tonight’s dances:

Lacey danced a samba and the judges thought it was a strong dance but she needed to be a bit more out there. She scored 26.

Will danced a waltz. the judges thought he’d improved. As such, he cracked the mid-20s and went away with 25 from the panel.

Shaun went next, with a brief cameo from dad Ian Wright in the training video. Shaun did a quickstep that Craig said was “everything a quickstep shouldn’t be”. He scored the lowest of the night with 15.

Cach briefly held the top of the leaderboard after his Couple’s Choice. The judges, who gave him 31, said it was a joy to watch.

Jaime was next with a Viennese waltz. The judges felt she could have been better, but was still dancing nicely. They gave her 28. No one was prouder than her dad Ray Winstone, who left a video message.

Melanie’s charleston featured a cameo from Neil Jones. The judges were impressed with her personality, but less so with the dancing. She got 17.

Sarah used the school run to feul her paso doble anger and the judges were split on whether they enjoyed it or not. They gave her 20.

Delta soared to the top of the leaderboard with a salsa that scored 33, as she earned the first 9 of the series.

Lawrence failed to impress with his rumba, which only got 20, but did get a 5 from Craig, which Jowita was happy with.

Dani’s tango showed improvement and the judges rewarded her with 27.

Graeme’s jive brought a tear to Craig’s eye, as he reminde the judge of the late Len Goodman. he earned a 25.

John’s first latin number was a cha cha cha and failed to reach the heights of his week one foxtrot. He walked away with 20.

Bethany was next up with an American Smooth that Shirley thought was “extremely impressive”. She got 27.

And Tabby was last with an Argentine tango that fans thought should have topped the leaderboard. But she came in joint second with 31.

I’ve been a Justin Herbert fan since his days in Oregon. I kept believing he was going to lead the Chargers to new heights, even after all the leadership changes he’s been through. He’s talented, tough and all-in. I gave him every benefit of the doubt. But now, I can conclude only that Justin Herbert is the problem. Inconsistent, often slow to react, but mostly he’s unable to finish. He’s lost more games in the fourth quarter than he’s won.

So far this season the Chargers have the greatest negative point differential in the fourth quarter in the NFL. The pattern is consistent regardless of the coach. Is it all on Herbert? No. But he is the common denominator through all of this.

Charlie Pankow
Moorpark

The fumbling, bumbling Chargers keep stumbling in their unprecedented 0-4 start in the Jim Harbaugh era.

First, the fumbling. Thank you, Derius Davis. Your inability to simply complete a fair catch led directly to a Seahawks touchdown. How many points did your team lose by?

Next, the bumbling. Call it a banged up offensive line, (AGAIN!), a moderately skilled and depleted receiving core, or a lost, interception prone Justin Herbert, the Charger offense remains sketchy, inconsistent, and self-destructive.

Finally, the stumbling continues … as they cannot beat teams they should or pull out potential victories over the more challenging ones.

Good luck turning this around!

Rick Solomon
Lake Balboa

I don’t care much about the Chargers. I rarely read stories about them and would be elated if they’d return to San Diego where they belong.

But, much like a car accident on the 405 that you instinctively know you shouldn’t stare, I just can’t seem to avert my eyes from the wreck the Chargers have become.

Ron Yukelson
San Luis Obispo

Here is a modest proposal: Lincoln Riley and Jim Harbaugh waive their buyout clauses and swap jobs. It might be the rare trade that improves both organizations. It is difficult to see how it could make things worse.

Paul Hunt
Sierra Madre

SACRAMENTO — What’s so wrong about requiring every Californian to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote? That’s what Proposition 39 backers ask. And it’s a fair question.

Here are some valid answers:

• It would make California’s already notoriously slow vote count even more pokey.
• It would be an added hassle for citizens attempting to exercise their voting right.
• It would cost taxpayers a bundle, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
• It’s another solution by politicians to a problem that really doesn’t exist.

Practically everyone, regardless of political affiliation, must understand by now that there simply is no evidence of widespread — significant, meaningful — voter cheating in California or anywhere else in America. This despite conspiracy-theorists’ fruitless searching and President Trump’s lies about “rigged” elections.

It’s my belief that the main reason Republicans placed Proposition 39 on the California ballot was to boost GOP voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. And recent independent polling shows that the measure does appeal strongly to Republicans — but not Democrats, who are united in opposition.

The proposition appears to be headed for defeat, largely because Democratic voters in this deep blue state equate it with the discredited president. Trump has turned into poison for Republican candidates in competitive races and any cause that reminds people of him.

That’s why the Proposition 39 campaign last week released a new major TV ad that essentially asks voters to ignore the president.

This is how conservative consultant Jon Fleischman summarized the ad’s message to Democrats in his blog: “You can hate Trump and still back Voter ID.”

Proposition 39 would mainly do two things:

• Require voters to show some government-issued identification each time they vote in person, such as a driver’s license or passport. Don’t have one? The state would issue a free ID card to any voter who asked.
• Californians who cast mail ballots — more than 80% of voters — would be required to write the last four digits of a government ID number on the return envelope. The number would be determined when initially registering to vote.

The measure also would impose some basically noncontroversial mandates that make sense separately. It would require election officials to maintain accurate voter registration files, weeding out people who have moved or died and verifying citizenship. But counties already do that pretty well.

The contrived bogeyman for election fraud scaremongers is the undocumented immigrant community. But these people, living on the edge and hiding from the government, aren’t going to risk deportation by trying to vote in an election they couldn’t care less about. And political candidates aren’t going to waste their time and money on them. Their targets are the large numbers of apathetic legal voters who sit out elections.

Currently, Californians must provide identification when registering and swear under penalty of perjury — a felony — that they are U.S. citizens. And they must record their signatures when registering and scribble it on the back of the ballot envelope when voting by mail.

Requiring me to add a four-digit number on the back of my “absentee” ballot envelope means I’d have to register all over again to record the PIN. And then remember it every election. A pointless pain.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, instigated and authored Proposition 39. “I do believe that voter fraud is a real problem. Absolutely,” he told me.

But he said the proposition has two main goals: 1, to clean up voter files and make sure ballots are properly validated and counted. 2, to increase public confidence in the voting process. “We have a perception problem,” he says. “Voters have low trust” in the election system.

Republicans mistrust a lot; Democrats not so much.

A California poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that 84% of Republican voters had a “major concern” about voter fraud. Only 21% of Democrats did.

Can anyone doubt who’s driving the Republicans’ anxiety? The bellicose president. “Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump has reiterated. “It’s terrible what’s going on.”

This from the hypocrite who mails in his ballots.

Fortunately, Proposition 39’s crafters left mail ballots pretty much alone, except for requiring a nuisance PIN on the ballot envelope.

That “absolutely” will slow down vote counting, says Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee and was the longtime chief elections official of Santa Cruz County. Under Proposition 39, officials not only would need to check voters’ signatures against those on file, but also their PINs.

And voting in person would drag while people dug for an ID and an official checked it, Pellerin says. Some people are bound to be denied their voting right by mistake, she asserts.

Tony Quinn, formerly a GOP redistricting consultant and a longtime political analyst, points out that a disproportionately high portion of in-person voters are Republicans. Proposition 39 is “imposing a burden on them,” he says. “I don’t think the authors realize who’s voting in person these days. They sense illegal aliens.”

The UC institute poll showed Proposition 39 being supported by 39% of likely voters and opposed by 52%. It was backed by 92% of Republicans, but Democrats were 80% against. And they outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 in California.

The proposition also trailed in a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California: 43% yes, 55% no.

In the PPIC poll, Republicans said 39 was by far the most interesting proposition on the ballot.

Trump’s influence? Among the paltry 27% of voters who approve of his job performance, 88% support Proposition 39. But of the 72% who disapprove of the president, 73% oppose the measure.

Trump is toxic.

Proposition 39 is more government regulation for no good reason.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Tax the rich? California voters are divided, according to new poll
Law & Order: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The L.A. Times Special: High cost of living tops voter concerns, Becerra remains front-runner in governor’s race, new poll shows

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.