SACRAMENTO — Look, Xavier Becerra could cruise to a South Pacific island and bask on the beach until election day and Californians would still choose him as their next governor.
So, last week’s televised CNN debate between Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton really had no election significance, although it was important for the Democratic frontrunner in other ways.
Who won the debate? Becerra, because he came across as calm, collected and capable of governing this troubled state — certainly very few voters’ ideal candidate, but the only real choice for most Californians.
There’s simply no way Becerra can lose on Nov. 3 because his only opponent is a Republican. Californians will not elect a Republican governor in this polarized era, particularly one endorsed by the reviled President Trump.
Moreover, Hilton’s only previous political experience was as an advisor to a British prime minister and his sole claim to U.S. notoriety was as a Fox News TV host–not exactly resume boosters in California.
Becerra — with public office experience spanning more than three decades — held a growing 25-point lead in a recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.
He’s a shoo-in simply because he has a “D” beside his name in this state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1 and despise the GOP president.
Californians haven’t elected a Republican to statewide office in 20 years — and that’s Hilton’s main pitch to voters.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result,” the GOP candidate asserted during the debate, as he does several times a day.
Turning to Becerra, Hilton said:
“You’re the candidate who is supported by the machine in Sacramento — the unions, big business, all these people that for 16 years have given us the highest cost of living in the country, made it impossible to build anything, given us the highest unemployment rate, the highest poverty rate….
“And that’s why we’ve got to try something different this time instead of voting for more of the same.”
OK, fair point. But try what exactly? That’s where Hilton stalls or veers erratically.
He’d build “10 new cities.” Build them where exactly? He doesn’t say.
He definitely doesn’t want to construct new apartment buildings in the suburbs “when we have got so much space that we could be building on in California.”
Like out in Southern California deserts or Central Valley farm fields — requiring two-hour commutes to urban jobs?
And where does the water come from for these 10 new cities as the West scrambles for what’s left of diminishing supplies? But unfortunately there was no discussion of that during the debate.
One debate exchange that caught my attention was about vaccines. Hilton seemed to be carrying the torch for whacko anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Becerra’s successor as U.S. health secretary in the Trump administration.
Debate co-moderator Dana Bash recalled what Hilton said previously about children’s vaccinations: “The government should have nothing to do with these fundamental and vital decisions.” And she asked whether he’d push to eliminate California’s vaccine requirements.
“No,” Hilton replied. “I’m pro vaccine.” But then he seemed to wander all over the stage looking to have it both ways.
It’s a “very, very emotional issue for a lot of parents,” he said, adding there’s “data around the world” showing that where vaccine “mandates are lower… you actually have higher [vaccination] compliance, where parents don’t feel that they’re being bullied into doing something that they don’t want to do. And that’s what I want to see here.”
But he ultimately said,“I’d follow the law.”
In California, the law requires all children without medical exemptions to be vaccinated for several diseases — including polio, measles, mumps, chickenpox, hepatitis B and whooping cough — before they’re admitted to school.
That’s a blessing. When I grew up, practically every kid at some point was bedridden with one or more of those dangerous ailments. Then some saviors invented vaccines.
“We had nearly eradicated measles,” Becerra said, responding to Hilton. “When I left HHS, you rarely heard of a case of measles…. Today, children are dying of measles. Today, the spread of measles has reached a proportion we haven’t seen since the 1960s.
“That’s what happens when vaccine deniers take over.”
Becerra achieved all he needed to in the debate. He didn’t screw up. He kept cool and actually was fairly quick on his feet in replying to Hilton’s attacks, while planting a MAGA hat firmly on the Republican’s head.
He missed an opportunity to accomplish more, however — like making Californians feel really good about voting for him, rather than merely because he’s the only Democrat left standing in the contest to replace the termed out Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Voters might like to hear what Becerra’s vision is — if he has one — for the California he wants to build.
What does he have in mind besides just defending California against Trump? That’s a given. How’s he going to lower our living costs? Upgrade public education? Prevent wildfires? Details, not platitudes.
Rather than relaxing on his lead, Becerra should be constantly moving around the state, introducing himself to Californians and — more importantly — listening to their problems and ideas. To his credit, he’s doing that this week.
“The debate was boring and uneventful, but Becerra won it,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “He is perfectly vanilla and that makes it really hard to pin him down in an attack.”
“We got the genuine Xavier Becerra. That’s exactly who he is,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry Sragow, a longtime political ally. “Thoughtful, committed and very decent, but does not go very high on the charisma meter.”
In California right now, a candidate’s charisma rates much lower than a simple “D.”
What else you should be reading
The must-read: Voter ID proponents accuse California Democrats of lying about Trump’s support for Prop. 39
Eyes of the World: Will or won’t they? Newsom and Harris weigh 2028 contest — and possible collision
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California general election
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
