race

SACRAMENTO — Every farmer knows there comes a time to thin the crop to allow the most promising plants to grow bigger and reach their potential.

The same is true in politics. And it‘s now time to cull some Democrats from the dense field of candidates for governor.

Put another way, it’s time for some lagging Democrats to step aside and provide more running room for swifter teammates in the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Sure, they’ve all got a constitutional right to run. But too many Democrats on the June 2 primary ballot could flip the California governor’s office to a Republican.

You’d think that Democratic candidates now plodding behind in the race — with little realistic hope of catching up — would want to avoid having that on their conscience. Party leaders, too.

Until recently, this nightmarish scenario for Democrats seemed inconceivable. After all, California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office for 20 years. Roughly 45% of registered voters are Democrats. Only 25% are Republicans. About 23% are independents who lean left.

But do the math. There are nine Democrats running for governor with various degrees of seriousness. There are only two major Republican contenders, plus a third lagging practically out of sight.

Remember, California has a “top two” open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the November election. And only the top two. Write-in candidates aren’t allowed.

It’s a matter of arithmetic.

In the primary, about 60% of voters will choose a Democrat, political data expert Paul Mitchell figures. That number of voters split among nine Democratic candidates could result in all sharing smaller pieces of the pie than what the top two Republicans receive. Mitchell estimates nearly 40% of voters will side with a Republican, with just two candidates splitting most of the smaller GOP pie.

Recent polls have shown three candidates — two Republicans and one Democrat — bunched closely near the top. They’re Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell from the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.

Another Democrat, former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, has been running close to the top three, followed by Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor.

It’s not likely that two Republicans will survive the primary and block a Democrat from reaching the general election. But it’s a legitimate possibility — and not worth the risk for the Democratic Party.

“How unlikely does it have to be for Democrats not to be worried?” asks Mitchell, who works primarily for Democrats. “Even if the chances are very small, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

He is constantly running primary election simulations. And last week he calculated the chances of two Republicans gaining the top slots at 18%. Most of his calculations have come out at around 10% to 12%, he says.

“I’m not trying to yell fire in a crowded theater,” Mitchell says. “But I’m trying to install a thermostat.”

He adds: “If there was ever a perfect storm when this could happen, we’re experiencing it now.”

The absence of a gubernatorial candidate heading the Democratic ticket in November, Mitchell says, would result in party damage far beyond the governor’s office.

It would lower Democratic voter turnout and probably cost the party congressional and legislative seats, and also affect ballot measures, Mitchell says.

In fact, it could jeopardize the Democrats’ chances of ousting Republicans and capturing control of the U.S. House.

So which candidates should drop out, not only to avoid embarrassment on election night but to save the party from possible disaster?

Four clearly should stay.

Swalwell has some momentum and is the leading Democrat in most polls, although his numbers are only in the teens. He’s relatively young at 45 and many voters are looking for generational change.

Porter is the leading female — with a chance to become the first woman elected California governor — and has been holding up in the polls despite showing a bad temper in a damaging TV interview last year.

Steyer has loads of his own money to spend on TV ads. But he needs a more coherent, simple message in the spots.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan just entered the race, but shows some promise. He’s a moderate with strong Silicon Valley tech support. And he also has youth at 43.

Five others should consider bowing out.

Xavier Becerra has a great resume: Former U.S. health secretary, former California attorney general and longtime congressman. But he hasn’t shown much fire. And his message is muted.

Antonio Villaraigosa also has an impressive resume: Former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. He’s running with a strong centrist message. But at 73, voters seem to feel his time is past.

Former state Controller Betty Yee knows every inch of state government, but lacks voter appeal.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond hasn’t shined in his current job and has no traction in the governor’s race.

Former legislator Ian Calderon isn’t even a blip.

What causes some candidates to stay in a race against long, even impossible odds?

“Hope springs eternal,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “History is replete with races that turned around on a dime.”

And many feel obligated to their donors and endorsers, he adds.

Also, consultants often “have a vested interest” financially in keeping their clients in the game, he acknowledges.

But currently, Sragow adds, “it’s time for the Democratic Party to get its act together and weed out the field.”

“Party leaders should start cracking the whip. There’s something to be said for decisions being made behind closed doors in a ‘smoke filled room.’ The difference today is that it’s in a smoke-free room.”

The filing deadline for officially becoming a candidate is March 6. After that, a name cannot be removed from the ballot. It’s stuck there — possibly drawing just enough votes to rob another Democrat of the chance to be elected governor in November.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Bernie Sanders kicks off billionaires tax campaign with choice words for the ‘oligarchs’
What the … : Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight — but court ruled on different California case
The L.A. Times Special: Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg eyeing East Coast, stirring concerns about California’s wealth-tax proposal

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While united against a common political enemy in the White House, the California Democratic Party remains deeply divided over how to address the state’s affordability crisis and who is best suited to lead the state in this turbulent era of President Trump.

Those fractures revealed themselves during the party’s annual convention in California’s liberal epicenter, San Francisco, where a slate of Democrats running to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched very different visions for the state.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and wealthy financier Tom Steyer were among the top candidates who swung left, with Porter vowing to enact free childcare and tuition-free college and Steyer backing a proposed new tax on billionaires. Both candidates also support universal healthcare.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest major candidate to enter the race, hewed toward partisan middle ground, chastising leaders in Sacramento for allowing the state budget to balloon without tangible improvements to housing affordability, homelessness and public schools.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), a vociferous critic and constant target of the Trump administration, emerged from the convention with the greatest momentum after receiving the most votes for the California Democratic Party’s endorsement, with 24% of delegates backing him.

“The next governor has two jobs: one, to keep Donald Trump and ICE out of our streets and out of our lives, and two, to lower your costs on healthcare, on housing, on utilities,” Swalwell said. “Californians need a fighter and protector, and for the last 10 years, I’ve gone on offense against the worst president ever.”

Still, none of the top Democrats running for governor received the 60% vote needed to capture the endorsement, indicating just how uncertain the race remains just months away from the June primary.

Betty Yee, a former state controller and party vice chair, placed second in the endorsement vote with 17%; former U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Xavier Becerra had 14%; and Steyer had 13%. The remaining candidates had single-digit levels of support from among the more than 2,300 delegates who cast endorsement votes.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) takes a selfie with supporters during the California Democratic Party’s annual convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco on Saturday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Despite anxiety and infighting over the governor’s race, many in the party agreed that the most effective way to fight Trump is to win back control of the House in November’s midterm elections.

“We’re going to win the House. There’s absolutely no question we will win the House,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at a Young Dems event on Friday evening. “We’re going to protect the election, we’re going to win the election, and we’re going to tell people the difference that we will make.”

Thousands of delegates, party allies and guests attended the weekend California Democratic Party convention at Moscone Center in the South of Market neighborhood. The gathering included a tribute to Pelosi as she serves her final term.

Party leaders did coalesce behind one of the Democrats running to replace Pelosi, Scott Wiener, a liberal state senator who is vying be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

The convention comes as party members and leaders continue to soul search after Trump’s second election. California remains a stronghold of opposition to the president, but its next governor will also have to face a growing cost-of-living crisis in a state where utility costs keep climbing and the median single-family home price is more than double what it is nationally.

Under growing pressure, the candidates for governor went on the offensive at the party gathering. Candidates sniped at each other — though rarely by name — for being too rich, too beholden to special interests or for voting in the past in support of ICE and border wall funding.

While largely panned by delegates who tend to lean further left than the typical California Democratic voter, Mahan has jolted the race by quickly raising millions from tech industry leaders and targeting moderate voters with a message of getting the state “back to basics.”

“We are at risk of losing the trust of the people of California if we don’t hold ourselves accountable for delivering better results on public education, home building, public safety,” Mahan said. “We’re not getting the outcomes we need for the dollars we’re spending.”

Mahan has raised more than $7.3 million since entering the contest in late January, according to campaign finance disclosures of large contributions. Many of the donors are tied to the tech industry, such as Y Combinator, Doordash, Amazon and Thumbtack. Billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso has also contributed the maximum allowed to Mahan’s campaign.

Technology businessman Dennis Bress, from Newport Beach, wears a pin supporting Planned Parenthood and a Yes on Proposition 50 shirt at the California Democratic Party convention at the Moscone Center on Friday in San Francisco.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Other candidates have raised concerns about the cash infusion, particularly Steyer, who has already dropped more than $37 million into his self-funded campaign and is pitching himself as a “billionaire who will take on the billionaires.”

“Here’s the thing about big donors: If you take their money, you have to take their calls,” Steyer said during his floor speech.

Delegates and party leaders said California’s next governor will have to continue leading the state’s aggressive opposition to Trump while dealing with the issues at home.

“I think people want a fighter,” said Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who represents Porter’s former congressional district and has endorsed her in the governor’s race. “They want someone who’s going to stand up to Donald Trump but also fight to help average people who feel like they’re getting a raw deal in today’s America.”

Several of the candidates made the case that they could do both.

During her speech, Porter held up a whiteboard — her signature prop when grilling CEOs and Trump administration officials while she served in Congress — with “F— Trump” written on it.

“I’ll stand up to Trump and his cronies just like I did in Congress,” she said. “But this election for governor is about far more than defeating Trump.”

Porter, a law professor at UC Irvine, called on Democrats to “send a message about democracy by rejecting billionaires and corporate-backed candidates.” She also rolled out a long list of “true affordability measures” including free child care, free tuition at public universities, and single-payer healthcare, though she did not specify how she would pay for them.

Fighting back against Trump is “the floor,” said 29-year-old Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside. “We need to go higher than the floor — what can you do for the people of California? We all recognize that this is a beautiful and wonderful state, but it is very difficult to afford living here.”

Even some delegates — often the most politically active members of a party — have yet to make up their minds in the governor’s race. Nearly 9% opted not to endorse a particular candidate at the convention.

“You want that perfect candidate. You want that like, yes, this is the person,” said Sean Frame, a school labor organizer from Sacramento who is running for state Senate. “And I don’t feel like there is one candidate for me that fits all that.”

For all the focus on affordability, there were undertones of growing frustration from even reliable Democratic allies over a lack of tangible results in a state where the median home price is more than $823,000. SEIU California president David Huerta said workers have “been deferring our power to elected leadership” for too long.

“I think we need to be the ones who set the agenda and hold them accountable to that agenda,” Huerta said. “And they need to be leading from the direction of working people.”

It’s a constant battle with Democrats at state and local levels to get fair pay, said Mary Grace Barrios, who left a career in insurance to take care of her disabled adult daughter.

Barrios makes $19 an hour as an in-home caregiver to other clients in Los Angeles County. When Newsom signed a law to raise wages for most healthcare workers to $25 an hour by 2030, in-home support staff like Barrios were not included.

“It’s so important that we be given the respect and pay we need to live because we can’t live on that amount,” she said, adding that it feels like a “constant attack by people in our own party that we supported, that forgot us.”

“As citizens, you get what you vote for, right? So we have to do it. We have to make the change.”

A one-size-fits-all sartorial approach is out of the question for the showmen of “Sinners,” “Hamnet,” “Frankenstein” and “Marty Supreme.” But whether the arena is theater, music, science or sports, all wear garments that accentuate their emotional states and prodigious talents — and leave an enduring mark. Here, Oscar-nominated costume designers Ruth E. Carter (“Sinners”), Malgosia Turzanska (“Hamnet”), Kate Hawley (“Frankenstein”) and Miyako Bellizzi (“Marty Supreme”) discuss defining menswear statements with The Envelope.

In Carter’s third collaboration with Ryan Coogler, Michael B. Jordan’s sharply dressed twins Smoke and Stack return to the Mississippi Delta in 1932 to open a juke joint, tapping their gifted blues musician cousin, Sammie (Miles Caton), to perform. “You see this style that [old blues players] embodied, whether it’s two-tone shoes, the hat, vest, shirts; all of that was laced into the storytelling,” says Carter. He might be a preacher’s son, but Sammie wears his passion on his blues-infused clothing in the record-breaking “Sinners.” “The vest is patched to show the wear from the guitar strap.”

Before the night goes to vampire hell, all eyes are on Sammie in earthy and gold tones as he sings “I Lied to You.” Artists spanning centuries and continents (including an electric-guitar-playing rocker and a Zaouli dancer) add to the mesmerizing sequence before returning to Sammie. “When we come back to him, we’re coming back to his own force and look,” Carter says.

A sketch of Sammie’s bluesman-inspired costume in “Sinners.”

(Ruth E. Carter)

A final scene set in 1992 shows Sammie (played by musician Buddy Guy) still beguiling audiences. Carter incorporates Guy’s real-life signature polka dots to highlight “this is a real story of the blues, and this is a real bluesman.” Stack’s authentic Coogi sweater (a nod to Biggie Smalls) contrasts with Sammie’s classic tailoring, which doubles as a memorial to his other cousin: “The color blue was an homage to Smoke and the flat cap.”

Clothing is also for remembrance in Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” in which a grieving William Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) turns to a meaningful shade in paying tribute to his son during the inaugural run of “Hamlet” at the Globe Theatre in London. “Will, in my head, was imagining, remembering and holding on to the memory of Hamnet,” Turzanska says. “And in a super crude, simplified way, putting the paint and the colors that he remembered onto Hamlet’s character with those brushstrokes.”

Turzanska constructed the players’ costumes from raw linen, using slightly enlarged, period-accurate shapes combined with contemporary latex paint. Using this stage language, Hamlet’s (Noah Jupe) jerkin is “quilted and painted flat,” to conjure Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe): “It was a memory of the vertical stripes.”

There are echoes among the costumes for William Shakespeare, Hamlet and Hamnet in Malgosia Turzanska’s costumes for “Hamnet.”

(Malgosia Turzanska)

Offstage, growing slashes in Will’s leather doublets depict “emotional turmoil.” Still, his turn as Hamlet’s murdered father (the Ghost) is the most overt example. The off-white cloak caked in clay is deliberately drained of all color. Turzanska tested the symbolic shroud (“You put this little harness on”) to ensure Mescal could move freely. Catharsis comes after Will exits the play: “The clay is cracking and falling off. Finally, when he washes it off, we see him break down for the first time and actually cry.”

Not every stage has a paying audience. In Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) reanimates a corpse during a disciplinary hearing demonstration. Clad in red, white and black, the renegade scientist’s sartorial inspiration is not bound to a single era.

“That was the first note from Guillermo [about Victor]. He goes, ‘Dandy, rock star. Look at David Bowie. Look at Prince,” says Hawley. “When we started talking with Oscar, he came in with his Prince stuff. When you look at his performance, you see all those subtleties, the physicality, the swagger.” Piping on the waistcoat is “a kick” to stand out against judges in black.

Hawley embraces “wonderful peacock” 1850s menswear shapes: Victor’s puffed-out chest accentuates the “wasp waist” likening him to a matador. An exaggerated period heel adds flair. “Shoes are what root the actor to the ground and their character,” Hawley says. “It elevates every gesture from there.”

Victor Frankenstein’s costumes in “Frankenstein” were inspired by musicians like David Bowie.

(Kate Hawley)

“Marty Supreme’s” Bellizzi is equally mindful of footwear. Bellizzi “worked with Keds to find the shape” resembling a narrow 1950s sneaker for Timothée Chalamet to wear as ambitious table tennis player Marty Mauser. “When he was training, I would give him a few different sneakers to see what looked good but also what felt good,” says Bellizzi. “Because he had to wear them all day and play in them.”

Marty switches from a sedate black polo shirt and high-waisted wool pants while playing at Wembley in London to an eye-catching pink satin set on tour with the Harlem Globetrotters during a lighthearted interlude in Josh Safdie’s propulsive comedy-drama. “We overexaggerated the pants and the sleeves in the body so it is big and flowy,” says Bellizzi.

By the time Marty arrives in Japan, his everyday suit “has been through the wringer.” Luckily, a rigged ping-pong exhibition match allows Marty to embrace his theatrical talents. “It was an opportunity to show him as someone else. He’s undercover,” says Bellizzi. “He has the cap and the jumper.” Ever the showman, Marty relishes ditching the pretense and his wardrobe onstage, embracing his competitive streak. “He turns it into a bigger situation than it should have been, and maybe part of the surprise is that he’s derobing,” Bellizzi says. “It shows how much passion comes out.” Across venues and centuries, each man’s attire is ovation-worthy.

It is no secret things are far from rosy at Parkhead, with fan protests during almost every home match.

O’Neill is in charge until the end of the season – his second interim spell in this chaotic campaign – and cracks are starting to appear despite the Northern Irishman’s legendary status at the club.

Supporters continue to demand boardroom change, there are obvious holes in O’Neill’s squad and they have now lost seven league matches. That’s as many as they lost in the previous two seasons combined.

Celtic fell behind to Felix Passlack’s header and rallied to equalise through Benjamin Nygren’s 18th goal of the season, but went down to 10 men after centre-back Auston Trusty was sent off for violent conduct.

Kai Andrews fired in a late winner for Hibs, making it successive defeats for Celtic after Thursday’s Europa League reverse against Stuttgart.

“It’s a setback, that’s all it is,” O’Neill said. “We’re still in the race.

“I thought we were absolutely terrific. The players put heart and soul into the game. No complaints on that side whatsoever.

“We’ve been chasing for months now. There’s not much room for error but we can still fight back. The players are disappointed but it’s not over.”

Despite O’Neill’s defence of his players, others were less complimentary.

“It all changed with Trusty’s sending off,” Bonner said. “Hibs handled the game very well after that.

“Celtic couldn’t get any momentum and it’s a brilliant goal from Kai Andrews. Celtic didn’t create anything. They ran out of luck.”

O’Neill brought in Tomas Cvancara, Junior Adamu and Joel Mvuka to bolster his attacking options in January, but Adamu was an unused substitute against Hibs and Mvuka wasn’t in the matchday squad.

“Without doubt, there is a lack of cutting edge at Celtic,” Stewart said.

“What’s up with Adamu? They need a goal and they put on [Daizen] Maeda, who is nowhere near the levels he was at before.”

RICHMOND, Calif. — New bumper stickers reading “Jesse Jackson/Dan Boatwright” appeared recently in this heavily black and economically struggling industrial city across the bay from San Francisco.

“Can you believe that?” state Senate candidate Sunne McPeak grumbled. “It makes it appear that Jesse Jackson has endorsed Dan Boatwright. He hasn’t. And Boatwright hasn’t endorsed Jackson. It’s misleading.”

McPeak, for 10 years a Contra Costa County supervisor, is challenging Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright, a white, 16-year veteran of the Legislature, in the hottest state Senate contest in the June 7 primary election.

On the same day the Jackson/Boatwright bumper stickers showed up, McPeak, who also is white, trumpeted the endorsement of her candidacy by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley as she walked black precincts in the 7th Senate District, which includes most of Contra Costa County.

Boatwright, widely regarded as a conservative Democrat who said he has not endorsed any candidate for President but will support the party’s nominee, denies that the bumper stickers are misleading. He asserts, while denying any contradiction, that they merely are intended “to get Jesse Jackson and me elected.”

In a tight election, the black vote–which Boatwright said makes up 15% of the Democratic registration–could be pivotal.

McPeak and Boatwright seem to share the same conservative political philosophy on many issues. Both fiercely oppose export of additional water from Northern to Southern California without ironclad guarantees that water supplies in their home base of Contra Costa County will not be degraded or diminished.

McPeak gained statewide attention in 1982 when she spearheaded a successful referendum that overturned a law that would have built the controversial Peripheral Canal, a project strongly supported by Southern California water interests and opposed by Northerners.

McPeak, 39, a former health care consultant, is the mother of two school-age children. An attorney, Boatwright, 58, is the father of three grown sons.

The Democratic winner in June will face Republican William Pollacek, a Martinez city councilman who is unopposed in the GOP primary. Although declining in numbers, Democrats still hold a big registration advantage in the district, 53.7% to 35.1% over Republicans. So the Democratic primary winner is a heavy favorite to emerge victorious in November.

The fast-growing region is a bedroom for San Francisco and includes some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the Bay Area, as well as some of the poorest. Ethnically diverse, Anglos account for roughly 71% of the district’s population, blacks 10%, Latinos 9%, Asians 5% and others 5%. But since blacks register heavily in the Democratic Party, they represent a much larger voter bloc in Democratic primaries than they do in general elections.

Boatwright’s casual manner masks an explosive temper and the tenacity of a pit bull. He delights in characterizing himself as “tough as a cob” and still speaks in a slight drawl that lingers from his boyhood in Arkansas

In legislative skirmishes, he has been known to invoke his experience as a combat infantryman in Korea and once told a reporter: “I’ve never seen anybody around that I couldn’t lick. And if I can’t do it with my fist, I’ll still do it.”

But the tough-talking Boatwright also writes poetry. In a sentimental poem printed in a campaign brochure, Boatwright talks of soaring “like a magic machine” with Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

Boatwright unabashedly boasts of his fondness for dipping into the “pork barrel” of public projects and delivering them to his constituents, including the expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park and authorization for a new state university campus at Concord.

“See that ridge up there?” he said, pointing to an undeveloped saddle of land as he wheeled his sedan through a scenic valley en route to a meeting with constituents to discuss creating a new bay-side park. “We saved that for open space.”

Last year, Boatwright carried a major bill for his district that proposed massive rehabilitation of deteriorating levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. But he got into a feud with fellow Democratic Sen. Ruben S. Ayala of Chino, chairman of the Senate Water Committee, and Ayala sent the bill back to his committee, never to re-emerge.

This left Boatwright open to political attack that he had failed his constituents. But pressure continued for a levee repair bill and in December, environmentalists, farmers, Southern California water interests, Deukmejian Adminstration water officials, Ayala and Boatwright agreed to a virtually identical measure.

Boatwright’s name was attached to the new bill as its author and it became law in March.

“Boatwright needed a substantial bill to run with in his district,” observed a Senate Democratic staff source.

McPeak, still active in water affairs, contends that the compromise would never have occurred without “pressure” from herself and others.

Now, Boatwright has proposed drought-spawned legislation that would require the installation of water meters in Sacramento, one of the few major population centers in California where water rates are not tied to water usage. Boatwright maintains that 25% of water used in Sacramento is wasted and if metering forced water conservation, his downstream district would benefit. Similar measures have failed in the past.

In her quest to unseat Boatwright, who concedes that this reelection race is his toughest, McPeak goes from door to door telling voters that “the incumbent has been in the Legislature for 16 years. I think it’s time for a change. Don’t you?”

For Boatwright, it is the first time since his election to the Senate in 1980 that he is spending his Saturdays walking precincts and knocking on doors in search of votes. His support includes Senate staff employees from Sacramento who “volunteer” to walk.

McPeak decided to take on Boatwright against the advice of the Democratic Establishment, including Senate leader David A. Roberti of Los Angeles, who last year perceived Boatwright as conspiring to topple him as president pro tem of the Senate.

As a result, Roberti fired Boatwright as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, one of the Senate’s most prestigious posts. Later, Roberti softened the punishment and appointed Boatwright as a member of the committee.

Lukewarm to Candidacy

Some Senate sources have suggested that Roberti is privately only lukewarm to Boatwright’s candidacy. But in keeping with Senate’s clubby tradition of standing by their own, Roberti has publicly pledged to provide “whatever is necessary” in campaign contributions to secure Boatwright’s renomination. Although he may be a rebel at times, Boatwright still is a member of the Senate Democratic fraternity.

Boatwright, who coasted to victory in previous reelection campaigns, estimated his primary election budget at $500,000, a substantial sum for an established incumbent. McPeak estimated her spending at $300,000, with most contributions coming from residents and organizations within the county, many of them developers.

McPeak, endorsed by some labor unions who had been urged by Roberti to remain neutral in the primary, portrays herself as an outsider, striking out against the “power brokers, the bosses, the political dictators” in Sacramento who counseled her not to run.

However, delegates to a recent convention of the California Democratic Party endorsed her over Boatwright, who became the only incumbent Democrat to not receive the endorsement of his party.

Although Boatwright did not seek the endorsement, giving it to McPeak rankled him. “I resent the state Democratic Party injecting itself into my race,” he said. “They don’t know how I vote in the Senate, and they shouldn’t be telling people in my district how they should vote.”

Stirs Controversy

Virtually from his first election to the Assembly in 1972, Boatwright has stirred controversy. He has been the subject of investigations by a local district attorney, state attorney general, Fair Political Practices Commission and the FBI. In each case, no charges were filed.

Additionally, he was sued by a citizen watchdog organization for allegedly failing to accurately disclose the value of two shares of stock he owned in a Walnut Creek shopping center. He purchased them for $24,000 in 1973 but the lawsuit charged their actual value exceeded $300,000. Boatwright won in court.

Later, the Internal Revenue Service claimed that Boatwright and his former wife owed $112,800 in back taxes and penalties on income from that stock allegedly not reported in 1976. Boatwright sued the IRS and the agency dropped the action, a Boatwright aide said.

McPeak said she does not intend to hit Boatwright about the investigations but will concentrate on his legislative record.

“We won’t get into that,” she said. “We are focusing on issues that affect the future. We are talking about his voting record. . . . We think that is sufficient.”

But Boatwright is skeptical. “She can’t get me on my record,” he asserted. “She is going to have to start attacking me personally. She is going to get down and dirty. She has to.”

In a typical election year, the interest in the down-ballot race for California insurance commissioner musters modest interest at best.

That all changed on Jan. 7, 2025, when wildfires swept through L.A. County, damaging or destroying more than 18,000 homes and killing at least 31 people.

The resulting anger directed at the insurance industry over how it has handled claims has helped draw four Democrats into the race, who will be vying this weekend for a critical endorsement at the party’s annual convention in San Francisco ahead of the June 2 primary election.

“We haven’t seen this level of competition and, frankly, choice on the Democratic side since it first became an elected office in 1990,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Los Angeles insurance advocacy group. “They represent wide-ranging views and a broad diversity of candidates.”

Up for endorsement are state Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), whose district includes the Palisades fire zone; former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim; former state Sen. Steven Bradford; and San Francisco businessman Patrick Wolff, who has not held elective office.

Three Republicans have declared their candidacies, but that party’s convention isn’t until April. The filing deadline to file for the race is March 6.

The GOP field includes businessman Robert Howell, who lost by 20 points in the 2022 general election to current Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Also running are insurance agent Stacy Korsgaden from Grover Beach, and attorney Merritt Farren, whose Pacific Palisades home burned down.

Peace and Freedom Party candidate Eduardo Vargas, a Los Angeles school teacher, is on the ballot too.

The race also follows Lara’s two troubled terms in office, during which he has been accused of cozying up to and receiving money from the insurance industry for his first campaign and conferences abroad.

Lara has denied any wrongdoing, and all the Democratic candidates have vowed not to accept insurance industry donations.

“For me and maybe for many survivors, it’s not a position that we ever thought much about, but now with many of our lives devastated by our dealings with insurers I think many survivors will be watching much more closely this time around,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, a community group that has accused Lara of being soft on insurers and has called for his resignation.

Allen was perceived by some as the leading candidate for the party’s nomination when he announced his candidacy in September. He has held his seat for more than a decade and is the only sitting legislator in the race. He said he would not be running if not for the wildfire that struck his district.

“The fire certainly was a searing experience, helping hundreds of people get their claims paid right, but it kind of begs the question of why should you have to call your state senator to get treated right,” he said.

Allen’s platform includes a number of ideas to ensure policyholders are treated better, including requiring insurers to clearly explain claim denials. But also key to his campaign is stabilizing an insurance market that over the last several years has seen insurers drop policyholders by the hundreds of thousands, especially in fire-prone neighborhoods.

That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the insurer of last resort. It’s rolls grew even more since the January fires and the insurer has been sued by fire victims over its claims practices. Allen wants to build insurer confidence in the market by having insurer requests for rate hikes reviewed in months, rather than the year or more they can drag out now.

He also points to his legislative record, especially his authorship of Proposition 4, which was approved by voters in 2024 and set aside $10 billion in general obligation bonds to fund climate resiliency and environmental protection projects — an important part, he said, of lowering insurance risks.

Allen has drawn a key endorsement from California Sen. Adam Schiff and as of Dec. 31 had about $1 million in the bank, more than any other candidate. But the race was shook up last month when progressive politician Kim declared her candidacy. She boasted an endorsement from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for whom she worked as his California political director during the 2020 presidential campaign.

She also has drawn attention for a plan to create a state-run disaster insurance policy for Californians.

Residents would continue to buy regular home insurance from the commercial market but would buy coverage for wildfires and other disasters from the state, similar to plans in some other countries.

The idea has come under sharp criticism from Court, who said it will shift the risk of costly disasters to taxpayers while allowing insurers to make profits from more predictable perils such as water and roof damage.

“We have to explore some different models, because the current system is not working. It’s too expensive and a market failure,” said Kim, adding that the plan could evolve.

Bradford, who represented communities in south L.A County and the South Bay in the Legislature, has been endorsed by L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. He said he’s running as a pragmatist and unifier.

“What we’ve been doing for far too long has been a whole lot of finger pointing and doing the blame game,” he said.

Bradford wants insurers to open their pricing books and give homeowners “real, guaranteed” premium discounts for upgrading their property.

He also is proposing a public–private partnership that shares the risk for insurers who write policies in fire-prone neighborhoods.

Wolff, a political newcomer, is a Chartered Financial Analyst, real estate investor and former hedge manager who cites his experience building a home and auto insurance brokerage for financial services firm Capital One.

“I spent the first half of 2025 really deeply studying the commissioner’s role and the history, and the race — the politics of everything. And after really doing that deep dive, I decided to step forward,” said Wolff, who wrote his campaign a $500,000 check and loaned it another $100,000.

He also thinks rate hikes sought by insurers need to be reviewed more quickly but wants the insurance department to publish annual reports on how specific companies handled claims.

“The insurance industry has basically lobbied to keep that data anonymous at the company level, and I think it’s really important to make that information public,” Wolff said.

Under California’s open primary system, the top two candidates will move on to the Nov. 3 general election, which means two Democrats could run up against each other if a Republican isn’t able to consolidate the GOP vote.

Steve Maviglio, a longtime political consultant currently working for State Treasure Fiona Ma, who is seeking the office of lieutenant governor, said that the race is wide open.

“This is a statewide election with millions of people with candidates they’ve never heard of,” he said.

With multiple candidates seeking the endorsement, it may be hard for any single one to reach the 60% threshold of delegate votes needed.

“If no one is endorsed, somebody is going to have to be the breakout candidate, and the way you do that is with money or organization,” Maviglio said. “Until I see that happen, it’s totally up in the air.”

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.

After blowing a two-goal lead to draw against the Premier League’s bottom club Wolves, there will be no dodging the questions on whether Arsenal are mentally ready to end their 22-year wait to become champions.

For the first time really this season, the title race is not completely in the control of Mikel Arteta and his players.

If Manchester City – five points behind in second place – win all of their remaining 12 games, which includes a home meeting against Arsenal, they will finish first.

The same, though, can be said for the Gunners, who have 11 matches left – and they win the April encounter at Etihad Stadium.

But after dropping four crucial points in successive draws against Brentford and Wolves, they are in danger of being haunted by the ghost of past failures.

Three successive runners-up finishes, two of them to Pep Guardiola’s men, provide a constant reminder.

Former Arsenal forward Alan Smith admitted “that word bottle will be used quite a bit in the next few days”.

The scenario seemed a lot different when Piero Hincapie slotted home his first goal for the club in the 56th minute, adding to Bukayo Saka’s fifth-minute opener.

But the Gunners lacked the control and ruthlessness to finish off a Wolves side that had lost their nine previous meetings and are heading for the Championship.

The hosts showed remarkable spirit to fight back with Hugo Bueno’s 20-yard curler giving them hope. Then, in the fourth minute of added time, 19-year-old Tom Edozie – off the bench for his senior debut – pounced on a mix-up between Arsenal pair David Raya and Gabriel and his shot went in off Riccardo Calafiori for a dramatic, dreamy leveller.

Arsenal next face London derbies with Tottenham and Chelsea and they have worryingly started to wobble at a decisive stage in the season.

Arteta knows his side will come under fire and scrutiny.

“Any opinion you have to take it on the chin,” he said. “Any bullet, take it, because we didn’t perform at the level required.

“Anything anyone says can be right because we didn’t do what we had to do. The way to do it is on the pitch on Sunday [against Spurs].”

Wolves boss Rob Edwards said his side “knew there is a massive pressure” on Arsenal at the minute – and they capitalised on that.

The Gunners have not been performing at their best since the start of 2026 and won only two of their last seven league matches, with victories against Leeds and Sunderland.

Arteta added: “Certain basics we have to do, we did them so poorly, one after the other.

“It is better not to judge it. We are all too emotional about it. You have to take the hit because we deserve it. It is very easy with emotion to say things that can damage the team. Everyone wants to do their best.”

Only Crystal Palace and West Ham (both eight) have dropped more points from winning positions in the league in 2026 than Arsenal (seven) and the Gunners have now failed to win from a leading position in three of their last five league games.

This was also the first time in Premier League history that a side starting the day bottom of the table avoided defeat to the leaders, despite trailing by two or more goals.

“It feels like a pivotal moment, a vital one, maybe a turning point,” Smith added on Sky Sports.

“It’s in Manchester City‘s hands now. With their experience and Guardiola’s experience they will really fancy it now. They can almost feel the nerves of the Arsenal team watching that.

“Having been 2-0 up against the team rock bottom on nine points is just not good enough for the team hoping to win the title. It doesn’t bode well for Arsenal to be able to handle the pressure.”

Nithya Raman began her political career by defeating a well-funded incumbent with deep ties to the Democratic Party establishment.

Raman, an urban planner who was running to shake up the status quo, became the first person to oust a sitting councilmember in 17 years, stunning the Los Angeles political establishment with her defeat of David Ryu in 2020.

Now, with her surprise, last-minute entry into the mayor’s race, the 44-year-old Silver Lake resident is hoping to defeat another incumbent, Karen Bass, by expanding on the formula that led to her first upset victory.

“I was an outsider when I first ran, and I think I’ll be an outsider in this race,” Raman said after filing her candidate paperwork on Feb. 7, hours before the deadline.

But after six years at City Hall, Raman is no longer an outsider. She has her own record, which is in many ways intertwined with the mayor’s, particularly on homelessness, an issue the onetime allies have worked closely together to remedy.

As a City Council member, Raman, whose previous campaigns were backed by Democratic Socialists of America Los Angeles, has sometimes walked a political tightrope, exasperating her progressive base on issues like policing. Last week, she said that the LAPD must not shrink further — a substantial evolution from her “defund the police” declaration during her first run for council.

She has also frustrated some on the left by calling for changes to the city’s “mansion tax,” which she backed in 2022 but which she now says is getting in the way of much-needed development.

Raman shook up a mayoral race that was devoid of high-powered challengers after former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner dropped out and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and billionaire developer Rick Caruso decided not to run.

“Nithya has shown that she can get votes. She’s going to be competitive,” said Bill Carrick, a longtime Democratic political consultant who worked on campaigns for former Mayors Eric Garcetti, James Hahn and Richard Riordan.

But her late entry will make it more difficult to get endorsements and raise money. With three months before ballots are mailed for the June 2 primary, she will have to work at double speed to build a campaign infrastructure and tap into bases that have helped her win before, from Hollywood supporters to DSA members and pro-housing advocates from the YIMBY — Yes in My Backyard — movement.

She has already missed DSA’s endorsement season. And last week, nine of her 14 City Council colleagues reiterated their endorsements of Bass, including another progressive council member, Hugo Soto-Martínez, who said he was “caught off-guard” by Raman’s “last-minute maneuver.”

Raman, who had also endorsed Bass, will have to combat hard feelings among some L.A. politicos who feel that her entry into the race is a betrayal of a mayor who helped her win reelection in 2024.

Raman has said that her decision to run was driven in part by her frustration with city leaders’ inability to get the basics right, such as fixing streetlights and paving streets.

Since launching her campaign, Raman has also joined a chorus of Angelenos criticizing Bass’ handling of the catastrophic Palisades fire, saying the city must be better prepared for major emergencies.

As the dust settles on her unexpected candidacy, political observers are assessing Raman’s prospects — both her strengths and the obstacles that stand between her and the mayor’s office.

Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman declined to comment. A Raman campaign spokesperson, Jeff Millman, also declined to comment.

Ryu, who lost to Raman in 2020, said Bass should be “nervous” about her newest opponent.

To win, Ryu said, Raman must tap into the strengths that helped propel her to victory in the past, including her prowess with social media.

“She couldn’t speak in front of crowds at the beginning. She was super nervous,” Ryu said. “But oh my God, her social media team, the production value of her videos. It’s a science.”

Raman’s 2020 campaign will be hard to replicate. That year, the council race focused not just on local policy but also on national issues such as #MeToo and the police murder of George Floyd, Ryu said. Big-name politicians weighed in, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsing Raman and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsing Ryu.

The most important difference, Ryu said, is that Raman can no longer plausibly position herself as an outsider.

“Now there’s a record. It’s easy when you’re the activist fighting the system. But when you’re in there, you realize it’s a zero-sum game,” he said. “Do you want to trim trees and fix potholes or build housing? Sometimes that is the brutal reality.”

In the coming months, Raman will have to reach beyond her district, which stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, introducing herself and her record to voters across the city. She began a media blitz in her first week as a candidate, doing interviews with NBC4, KNX News and The Times.

Her main goal should be to make it to the November runoff, said Mike Trujillo, a Democratic political consultant.

If no candidate among the roughly 40 running for mayor wins more than 50% of the vote in the June 2 primary, the top two finishers will move to the runoff.

A runoff would allow Raman a fresh start, with each candidate starting a new round of fundraising and pitching themselves to voters in a one-on-one contest.

“If it’s Nithya and Mayor Bass, they would both start at zero,” Trujillo said. “For a challenger, that is a godsend.”

That leaves political watchers doing the math of how the mayor and the councilmember could get to the runoff, and which candidates might block their way.

After Bass and Raman, the three biggest figures in the race are Spencer Pratt, Rae Huang and Adam Miller.

Pratt is a registered Republican whose house burned down in the Palisades fire. He has been sharply critical of the mayor’s handling of the fire and has gained traction with national Republicans, including allies of President Trump.

Of the more than 2 million registered voters in the city of Los Angeles, just under 15% were Republicans as of December 2025.

Mike Murphy, a Republican political consultant, thinks Pratt could get 19% to 21% of the vote, with a ceiling in the mid to high 20s.

“Not liking Karen does not make you a Republican,” Murphy said.

On the other side of the spectrum, community organizer Rae Huang has been running an unabashedly leftist campaign, calling for free buses and the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Huang has not been endorsed by DSA’s Los Angeles chapter, but she is a member of the organization.

In 2022, leftist Gina Viola won nearly 7% of the vote in the primary.

Trujillo, the Democratic consultant, said the other wild card is Adam Miller, the tech entrepreneur who has waded into the fight against homelessness. Miller could spend a significant amount of his own fortune in the race — as Caruso did against Bass in 2022.

If Pratt and Huang combine to take 25% and Miller can take somewhere in the 20% range, then Raman and Bass would have to worry about not making the runoff.

“Suddenly, you have a three-way jump ball,” Trujillo said.

Despite having more name recognition than some of her opponents, Raman will need to raise significant funds in a short time.

“My hope is that money will flow,” said Dave Rand, a land use attorney active on housing issues who supports Raman.

Rand said that developers and people in the YIMBY movement will support Raman, who has been a strong advocate for building more housing in Los Angeles.

Mott Smith, a developer and Raman supporter, said he believes fellow developers who know Raman will “gladly” contribute to her campaign.

Smith said he is concerned about Angelenos associating Raman with DSA, which could turn off more moderate voters.

“She will win if Los Angeles gets to know the pragmatic, solutions-oriented Nithya, as opposed to the cartoon image that one paints when they hear she is the latest of the DSA candidates to run for office here,” he said.

Re Rosenberg vs. Badham in 40th Congressional District:

Nathan Rosenberg can attack Rep. Robert E. Badham. The voters will decide whom to believe and vote accordingly.

Rosenberg can attack Thomas A. Fuentes. The county GOP chairman is fully capable of defending himself.

But Rosenberg goes too far when he impugns the integrity of the late Ronald W. Caspers. Supervisor Caspers loved south coast Orange County and served the area with distinction. He and two of his sons died in a tragic boating accident just after he was reelected in 1974. Ron was a self-made millionaire and had no need, much less desire, to gain personally from his public service.

Young Rosenberg’s lack of respect for his elders, particularly those unable to defend themselves, does not speak well of his own integrity. Nathan, you owe Ron Caspers and his surviving family members an apology.

RANDY SMITH

Irvine

SACRAMENTO — Tom Steyer must solve this dilemma: How does he convince financially struggling Californians they can trust a billionaire to be their governor?

Because, after all, the former hedge fund titan doesn’t exactly share their daily ordeal of scraping up enough money to pay for rent, groceries and gas in the run-down car.

And he doesn’t have any record in public office to point to. He’s trying to start his elective career at the top.

So, what’s the solution? Well, you can be a global celebrity like super-rich actor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected in 2003. Or a Gold Rush tycoon like Leland Stanford back in 1861. Other than those two, there’s a long list of well-heeled rookie failures.

They include Republican Meg Whitman, who blew $144 million of her fortune losing in 2010. And Al Checchi, who spent $40 million of his own money getting beaten in the 1994 Democratic primary.

“Look, they didn’t have anything to say,” Steyer told me while sipping tea at a popular hangout near the state Capitol, specifically mentioning Whitman and Checchi. “They’d never done anything. Not like I’ve done for 14 years.”

Steyer, 68, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, touts his record of funding and promoting progressive causes, including successful ballot campaigns that raised tobacco taxes, closed a major corporate tax loophole and beat back oil industry efforts to kill climate fighting laws.

“I could give you 10 things I’ve done about environmental sustainability and economic justice,” he said.

“Why trust me? Because I’ve gotten results. And I don’t owe anybody anything.”

The Democrat spent $12 million on TV ads last year pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 that allowed the Legislature to gerrymander congressional districts aimed at gaining five more Democratic seats in California.

Being a billionaire allows Steyer to buy all the TV spots he wants. He already has popped for $27 million worth running for governor.

But astronomical wealth comes with a political price.

“California voters do not cotton to some rich guy who has never spent a day in office but looks in the mirror one morning and suddenly sees a governor of California,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry South.

So, in his campaign TV commercials, Steyer wears casual backyard barbecue garb trying to look like Mr. Average, but with a populist agenda.

“I’m the billionaire who’s going to take on the billionaires,” he says.

That sounds counterintuitive, and I’m skeptical about how well it sells.

Steyer knows he sorely needs labor support to seem credible among the working class. That’s why he recently joined rallies for striking teachers in San Francisco and healthcare workers in San Diego.

He has scored endorsements from the California School Employees Assn. — a union representing school staff — and the California Nurses Assn.

Nurses are backing Steyer largely because he has embraced their No. 1 goal: a single-payer, state-run health insurance system.

They’ve attempted to push that in Sacramento for years and failed. And for good reason.

Single-payer would cost the state barrels of money it doesn’t have. Moreover, it would replace not only private insurance, but popular federal Medicare and the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor. The federal government would need to agree. Fat chance.

I asked Steyer whether he really believes the state bureaucracy is capable of handling such an ambitious undertaking.

“We’re going to have to get back to having a government that works,” he replied, in what sounded like a knock on Newsom and his predecessors.

How could he make a single-payer system work? “God is in the details,” he answered, a phrase he frequently uses. Translation: “I don’t know.”

“We’re going to work through it. That’ll take at least three years… But we’re going to have to do it…. Healthcare costs have been escalating for a very long time. And they’re eating up the [state] budget.”

After Steyer left hedge fund investing, he became an ardent crusader for clean energy and fighting climate change. It was his core issue running for president in 2020, when he spent $340 million before giving up.

But these days, he barely mentions climate. The better politics du jour is advocating for “affordability” — especially affordable housing.

Steyer said he doesn’t have a “silver bullet” for lowering housing costs. He has “silver buckshot” — a scattergun of solutions for boosting housing supply, plus rent control.

He’d shorten the time for issuing construction permits, require rezoning to develop vacant land, tax unoccupied housing left off the market and build higher — more like in New York’s Manhattan, where he was raised.

“What we’re doing is sprawl,” he said. “And what sprawl leads to is an awful lot of commuting, a lot of driving.”

That’s been a problem for generations, I noted. Suburban ranch-style housing is the California way. “People can change,” he said. “I think people want to.”

I asked him about the slow-poke bullet train project that’s costing four times original estimates.

“Of course, I’m in favor of high speed rail,” he said. “But good grief. We’ve been working on this for an incredibly long time and spent an incredible amount of money. As far as I can tell, we haven’t built anything. If we’re going to do high-speed rail, we have to build it at a reasonable price. And we haven’t been able to do that.”

Might he abandon the project? “I want to look at it,” he said.

The odds are against him ever getting the opportunity.

But the odds aren’t exciting for any candidate in this ho-hum contest.

Steyer is running in the middle of the pack, based on polls. He has hired the strategists who managed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victorious campaign for New York mayor.

There’s no front-runner for governor. But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) has some momentum. He recently was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff. And he’ll also soon be endorsed by influential former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I’m told.

Voters will do their all-important endorsing in the June 2 primary.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: In 50-year fight to protect California’s coast, they’re the real McCoys, still at it in their 80s
CA vs. Trump: Trump, California and the multi-front war over the next election
The L.A. Times Special: Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Black Caps openers Finn Allen and Tim Seifert had come out swinging after their side batted first.

Allen hit four fours and two sixes for his 17-ball 31 before Marco Jansen (4-40) crucially took three wickets in quick succession to bring South Africa back into the game.

The seamer sent back Seifert for 13 in his first over before dismissing Rachin Ravindra and Allen in the space of four balls in the final over of the powerplay.

Mark Chapman and Daryl Mitchell rebuilt the innings and New Zealand were scoring at around 10-an-over for more than half the innings.

They were 138-5 when Chapman fell to the last ball of the 14th over, having made 48 from 26 balls, with their opponents able to drag it back from there and restrict New Zealand to 175-7.

It appeared short at the halfway stage and within a few balls of the reply, that was confirmed.

Markram and De Kock got after opening bowlers Matt Henry and Lockie Ferguson from the off, then gave Jacob Duffy the same treatment when he came on.

Ferguson bowled De Kock with a slower ball but there was no slowing the Proteas as Markram continued his charge, first alongside Rickelton then Dewald Brevis, who both made 21.

Markram was able to watch from the non-striker’s end as David Miller finished the job in style – launching Ferguson into the stands for a monstrous six.

South Africa will official qualify for the Super 8s if the United Arab Emirates fail to beat Afghanistan on Monday.

Some of the biggest names behind the artificial intelligence boom are looking to stack Congress with allies who support lighter regulation of the emerging technology by drawing on the crypto industry’s 2024 election success.

Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman are among tech leaders who’ve poured $50 million into a new super political action committee to help AI-friendly candidates prevail in November’s congressional races. Known as Leading the Future, the super PAC has taken center stage as voters grow increasingly concerned that AI risks driving up energy costs and taking away jobs.

As it launches operations, Leading the Future is deploying a strategy that worked two years ago for crypto advocates: talk about what’s likely to resonate with voters, not the industry or its interests and controversies. For AI, that means its ads won’t tout the technology but instead discuss core issues including economic opportunity and immigration — even if that means not mentioning AI at all.

“They’re trying to be helpful in a campaign rather than talking about their own issue all the time,” said Craig Murphy, a Republican political consultant in Texas, where Leading the Future has backed Chris Gober, an ally of President Trump, in the state’s hotly contested 10th congressional district.

This year, the group plans to spend up to $125 million on candidates who favor a single, national approach to AI regulation, regardless of party affiliation. The election comes at a crucial moment for the industry as it invests hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure that will put fresh strains on resources, with new data centers already blamed for driving up utility bills.

Leading the Future faces a growing challenge from AI safety advocates, who’ve started their own super PAC called Public First with a goal of raising $50 million for candidates who favor stricter oversight. On Thursday, Public First landed a $20-million pledge from Anthropic PBC, a rival to OpenAI that has set itself apart from other AI companies by supporting tougher rules.

Polls show deepening public concern over AI’s impact on everything from jobs to education to the environment. Sixty-two percent of US adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week, and 58% are concerned the government will not go far enough in regulating it, according to the Pew Research Center.

Jesse Hunt, a Leading the Future spokesman, said the group is “committed to supporting policymakers who want a smart national regulatory framework for AI,” one that boosts US employment while winning the race against China. Hunt said the super PAC backs ways to protect consumers “without ceding America’s technological future to extreme ideological gatekeepers.”

The political and economic stakes are enormous for OpenAI and others behind Leading the Future, including venture capitalists Andreessen and Horowitz. Their firm, a16z, is the richest in Silicon Valley with billions of dollars invested in AI upstarts including coding startup Cursor and AI leaderboard platform LM Arena.

For now, their super PAC is doing most of the talking for the AI industry in the midterm races. Meta Platforms Inc. has announced plans for AI-related political spending on state-level contests, with $20 million for its California-based super PAC and $45 million for its American Technology Excellence Project, according to Politico.

Other companies with massive AI investment plans — Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. — have their own corporate PACs to dole out bipartisan federal campaign donations. Nvidia Corp., the chip giant driving AI policy in Washington, doesn’t have its own PAC.

Bipartisan push

To ensure consistent messaging across party lines, Leading the Future has created two affiliated super PACs — one spending on Republicans and another on Democrats. The aim is to build a bipartisan coalition that can be effective in Washington regardless of which party is in power.

Texas, home of OpenAI’s massive Stargate project, is one of the states where Leading the Future has already jumped in. Its Republican arm, American Mission, has spent nearly $750,000 on ads touting Gober, a political lawyer who’s previously worked for Elon Musk’s super PAC and is in a crowded GOP primary field for an open House seat.

The ads hail Gober as a “MAGA warrior” who “will fight for Texas families, lowering everyday costs.” Gober’s campaign website lists “ensuring America’s AI dominance” as one of his top campaign priorities. Gober’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In New York, Leading the Future’s Democratic arm, Think Big, has spent $1.1 million on television ads and messages attacking Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman who has called for tougher AI safety protocols and is now running for an open congressional seat encompassing much of central Manhattan.

The ads seize on Democrats’ revulsion over Trump’s immigration crackdown and target Bores for his work at Palantir Technologies Inc., which contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Think Big has circulated mailings and text messages citing Bores’ work with Palantir, urging voters to “Reject Bores’ hypocrisy on ICE.”

In an interview, Bores called the claims in the ads false, explaining that he left Palantir because of its work with ICE. He pointed out the irony that Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder who’s backed the administration’s border crackdown, is a donor to Leading the Future.

“They’re not being ideologically consistent,” Bores said. “The fact that they have been so transparent and said, ‘Hey, we’re the AI industry and Alex Bores will regulate AI and that scares us,’ has been nothing but a benefit so far.”

Leading the Future’s Democratic arm also plans to spend seven figures to support Democrats in two Illinois congressional races: former Illinois Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Melissa Bean.

Following crypto’s path

Leading the Future is following the path carved by Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that joined affiliates in putting $133 million into congressional races in 2024. Fairshake made an early mark by spending $10 million to attack progressive Katie Porter in the California Democratic Senate primary, helping knock her out of the race in favor of Adam Schiff, the eventual winner who’s seen as more friendly to digital currency.

The group also backed successful primary challengers against House incumbents, including Democrats Cori Bush in Missouri and Jamaal Bowman in New York. Both were rated among the harshest critics of digital assets by the Stand With Crypto Alliance, an industry group.

In its highest-profile 2024 win, Fairshake spent $40 million to help Republican Bernie Moreno defeat incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, a crypto skeptic who led the Senate Banking Committee. Overall, it backed winners in 52 of the 61 races where it spent at least $100,000, including victories in three Senate and nine House battlegrounds.

Fairshake and Leading the Future share more than a strategy. Josh Vlasto, one of Leading the Future’s political strategists, does communications work for Fairshake. Andreessen and Horowitz are also among Fairshake’s biggest donors, combining to give $23.8 million last year.

But Leading the Future occasionally conflicts with Fairshake’s past spending. The AI group said Wednesday it plans to spend half a million dollars on an ad campaign for Laurie Buckhout, a former Pentagon official who’s seeking a congressional seat in North Carolina with calls to slash rules “strangling American innovation.” In 2024, during Buckhout’s unsuccessful run for the post, Fairshake spent $2.3 million supporting her opponent and eventual winner, Democratic Rep. Donald Davis.

Regulation proponents

“The fact that they tried to replay the crypto battle means that we have to engage,” said Brad Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who helped launch Public First. “I’d say Leading the Future was the forcing function.”

Unlike crypto, proponents of stricter AI regulations have backers within the industry. Even before its contribution to Public First, Anthropic had pressed for “responsible AI” with sturdier regulations for the fast-moving technology and opposed efforts to preempt state laws.

Anthropic employees have also contributed to candidates targeted by Leading the Future, including a total of $168,500 for Bores, Federal Election Commission records show. A super PAC Dream NYC, whose only donor in 2025 was an Anthropic machine learning researcher who gave $50,000, is backing Bores as well.

Carson, who’s co-leading the super PAC with former Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, cites public polling that more than 80% of US adults believe the government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, and says voter sentiment is on Public First’s side.

Public First didn’t disclose receiving any donations last year, according to FEC filings. But one of the group’s affiliated super PACs, Defend our Values PAC, reported receiving $50,000 from Public First Action Inc., the group’s advocacy arm. The PAC hasn’t yet spent any of that money on candidates.

Crypto’s clout looms large in lawmakers’ memory, casting a shadow over any effort to regulate the big tech companies, said Doug Calidas, head of government affairs for AI safety group Americans for Responsible Innovation.

“Fairshake was just so effective,” said Calidas, whose group has called for tougher AI regulations. “Democrats and Republicans are scared they’re going to replicate that model.”

Allison and Birnbaum write for Bloomberg.

From a huge game on Wednesday, to an even bigger one on Sunday afternoon. First travels to second when Hearts go to Ibrox to face Rangers.

Derek McInnes’ side won there earlier in the season, for the first time since 2014. They beat Rangers at Tynecastle, too, in a 2-1 win in December.

But, Rohl’s men haven’t lost since then. In fact, they’ve drawn twice and won seven. It’s resurgent form that looks a world away from a team which were once 13 points adrift in the title race under Russell Martin.

“I think it is a pretty good point [against Motherwell] but as Danny Rohl mentioned, there’s a massive game on Sunday [against Hearts] and that starts to look like a must-win,” said former Rangers midfielder Derek Ferguson.

Celtic will be looking on, crossing their fingers and wishing for a draw.

They’ll be fresh off the back of a game against Kilmarnock down at Rugby Park. The last time they were, they won thanks to a late Kelechi Iheanacho penalty.

They’ll need a better performance than the one against Livingston. Although they peppered the visitors’ goal with shots, the lack of cutting edge will be a worry.

“Celtic were running out of ideas, very predictable, just playing it across, hoping rather than making it happen, and they just got away with it right at the end,” said former keeper Pat Bonner.

“What a huge three points it is for Celtic. They’ll be relieved.”

MILAN — There’s a lot of love in those gloves.

Before her fateful downhill run Sunday — one that ended with a violent crash after 13 seconds — Lindsey Vonn pulled on a pair of out-of-production gloves from her childhood skiing idol, Picabo Street.

The gloves are weathered and white, their brightness dulled by the decades, with the brand name “reusch” across the knuckles and a big, plum-colored sun on top. On the wrist straps are Street’s initials, scrawled in marker.

Vonn didn’t announce the gesture, nor did NBC, which employs Street as a color commentator. Street was at the starting gate of the Olimpia delle Tofane course for Sunday’s coverage.

Street confirmed to the Los Angeles Times that the two longtime friends made the glove exchange before the Olympics.

“When she saw a picture of me in those gloves, she was like, ‘Oh, those would be cool,’” Street told the Times. “And I caught wind of it, and was like, ‘Well, I just happen to have them.’”

Those gloves are especially meaningful to Street because they are immortalized on the bronze statue of her in Sun Valley, Idaho. The sun across the top is visible in the sculpted detail.

“It was just my way of being able to show her that, you know, I love you and I believe in you,” Street said. “And wear these, they’ll be fun.”

The two were on the U.S. Ski Team together — Street at the end of her career, Vonn at the beginning — and have been close friends for years. Vonn co-produced the documentary “Picabo,” and in it tells Street, “You are my hero.”

The gloves Picabo Street gave to Lindsey Vonn before Vonn’s race in the Olympic downhill on Feb. 8.

(Courtesy of Picabo Street)

Street, whose skiing and who’s first name helped make her a pop-culture sensation during her Olympic career is a huge fan of Vonn. In speaking to the Times, she said on multiple occasions, “I’m not the story here, so this isn’t about me.”

Still, there are some uncanny coincidences. For instance, Vonn was the 13th skier in Sunday’s lineup and her run lasted 13 seconds before her fall, in which she broke her left leg. Late in her career, Street suffered a broken left leg in a race that took place on Friday the 13th in Crans Montana, Switzerland, where Vonn sustained a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament in a fall at the end of January.

Street had an emotional reaction when she learned what bib number Vonn would be wearing.

“I about puked when I saw number 13,” Street said. “I got very little sleep. I cried all night long, and I cried in the morning. I couldn’t shake it.”

She said her main concern now is her friend’s return to health, not for competitive skiing but for life.

“I want her leg to work for her,” Street said. “I want her nerves to work for her. I want her to have function of her whole body again, and in case she wants to have a family, she can play with her kids.”

The gloves weren’t the first piece of equipment Street loaned to Vonn.

Lindsey Vonn prepares to leave the downhill starting gate while wearing Picabo Street’s gloves on Feb. 8.

(Screenshot courtesy of NBC)

“I remember when I raced in Salt Lake, and I retired, and I was packed up and leaving the house we were staying in,” Street said, referring to the 2002 Winter Olympics. “She came into the house, and I remember giving her a huge hug and giving her a couple of items — one of which she wore in those Games — which was a sleeve around her braid, because we both have really long hair.

“I wore a red, white and blue American-flag neoprene sleeve around my hair, and she wore one as well. I handed her that there and was like, ‘Here you go. Go get ‘em.’”

After Vonn’s crash Sunday, Street told her own mother about loaning the gloves.

“I said, ‘Oh God, mom, she was wearing my gloves,’” she said, her voice catching with emotion.

“At first my mom said, ‘Oh, honey,’ and then she goes, ‘OK, let’s flip this. Maybe the gloves kept her from getting injured worse.’”

MILAN — Brittany Bowe will bow out of the Olympics without a medal in her best event.

A four-time Olympian who said the Milan-Cortina Games will be her last, Bowe was edged off the podium in the final pair of the speed skating 1,000-meter race Monday, finishing fourth with a time of one minute and 14.55 seconds. Japan’s Miho Takagi bumped the 37-year-old American out of third place with a time of one minute, 13.59 seconds.

The Netherlands’ Jutta Leerdam set an Olympic record to win gold, clocking in at one minute, 12.31 seconds. She bested her own teammates’ Olympic record set minutes before to push Femke Kok down to silver.

Kok clapped with a resigned look on her face after Leerdam’s time flashed on the screen. Black mascara stained Leerdam’s cheeks as she skated around the arena, saluting the legion of Dutch fans that filled the stands at Milano Speed Skating Stadium. Her fiance, YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul, was in the stands and moved to tears.

Jutta Leerdam of the Netherlands celebrates winning the gold medal in the women’s 1,000-meter speedskating race at the Winter Olympics in Milan on Monday.

(Luca Bruno / Associated Press)

Erin Jackson, the 2022 Olympic gold medalist in the 500 meters who was skating through three herniated discs in her lower back, finished sixth. Racing in the 1,000 meters for the first time in her Olympic career, she clapped cordially at the end of the race. Bowe, who set the world record in the 1,000 meters in 2019, hugged her coaches before disappearing off the ice.

Already longtime friends, the Americans became inextricably linked in 2022. Bowe gave up her qualifying spot in the 500 meters for the Beijing Olympics after Jackson slipped during the U.S. Olympic trials. Bowe had already qualified in other disciplines. She knew Jackson had potential to win a medal. The decision to relinquish her spot was easy, she said at the time.

Jackson made the sacrifice worth it, becoming the first Black woman to win an individual gold medal in the Winter Olympics. Bowe, who still raced in the 500 meters after an additional spot became free, finished 16th.

Bowe instead relied on her top event, the 1,000 meters, for her chance at the podium. The world record holder in the event — which she set in 2019 — won bronze in Beijing for her first individual Olympic medal.

American Erin Jackson competes in the women’s 1,000-meter speedskating race at the Winter Olympics in Milan on Monday.

(Luca Bruno / Associated Press)

But the experience felt “empty,” Bowe said in retrospect. With empty stands during the pandemic-affected Games, Bowe missed the energy of the crowd and especially her family and friends.

Bowe wasn’t lacking for crowd noise Monday. The oval was encircled by a ring of orange. Dutch fans roared every time one of their competitors zoomed by. Even when Kok and Leerdam were warming up, gliding by at a snail’s pace compared to skaters during their race, the crowd cheered. They waved in acknowledgment.

When Kok crossed the finish line, she raised both fists triumphantly. Her time of one minute, 12.59 seconds was good enough for the Olympic record, but Leerdam blazed past her only two pairs later.

Bowe and Jackson will still race in Jackson’s specialty of the 500 meters, while Bowe will finish her Olympic career in the 1,500 meters.

SACRAMENTO — California may be headed toward killing the billionaire birds that lay the golden eggs needed to nourish this Golden State.

The English fable about the farmer and his wife who foolishly whack their golden goose comes to mind when I think about the proposed billionaire tax in California.

The couple possessed a bird that laid a golden egg every morning, but they slaughtered it for one fat meal.

The billionaire tax — or wealth tax — would generate a one-time bounty for the state government of up to $100 billion collected over five years, according to its promoters. But its many critics say it would drive billionaires out of California, costing the state lots more in tax revenue over the long run.

These birds are capable of flying off to anywhere, after all.

Here’s how the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office summarizes the proposal’s fiscal effects:

• “Temporary increase in state revenues … probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years.”
• ”Likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”

The golden goose is replaced by a mud hen.

Whether billionaires fly the coop or are forcibly penned in by the measure, as its drafters intend — and whatever the policy’s merits — it just seems like bad PR for California.

We might as well run TV ads and erect billboards along the border proclaiming: “Welcome to California, the land of opportunity. Make a fortune so state politicians can grab a sizable chunk.”

We’ve already got by far the highest income tax rates in the nation, topping out at 13.3%. The top 1% of earners pay between 40% and 50% of the entire state income tax collected annually. The top 0.1% kick in about 20%.

California is infamous for its unfriendly business climate, with byzantine regulations and an agonizingly slow permitting system.

“It sends out the worst possible message to the people we need in the state, the people who produce jobs,” says Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable.

Democratic strategist Garry South says: “Bleating about ‘tax the billionaires’ is a good applause line at Democratic gatherings, but it appears oblivious to the fact they’re already being taxed …

“Our revenue base is disproportionately dependent on capital gains and other income sources unique to the well-off.”

This wealth tax is not being pushed by Sacramento Democrats.

Love from labor, spurned by Newsom

Gov. Gavin Newsom is adamantly opposed. “It is not something that will allow us to be competitive,” he says.

And the governor asserts: “You would have a windfall one time, and then over the years you would see a significant reduction in taxes because taxpayers will move.”

Most Democratic candidates for governor oppose the ballot initiative.

“Driving out the entrepreneurs and innovators who have enriched California is not the answer to the pressing societal question” of how to address the “growing concentration of wealth,” says the latest gubernatorial entry, San José Mayor Matt Mahan.

The initiative is being led by a labor organization: the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 healthcare workers. It intends to spend up to $14 million to collect nearly 875,000 voter signatures by June 24 to place the measure on the November statewide ballot.

It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires, based on their wealth as of Jan. 1 this year. The tax would be due in 2027, but it could be paid in installments over five years.

That’s assuming state bureaucrats can even figure out the billionaires’ worth. And the new tax law isn’t tied up in courts for many years, as it surely would be.

Band-Aid for Republican healthcare cuts

The measure’s purpose is to make up for the billions of dollars in federal cuts to California healthcare programs, especially Medi-Cal. Of the total tax take, 90% would go to healthcare and 10% to education.

“If we don’t do something about [the federal cuts], we’re going to see devastating consequences,” says Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff.

Unless the billionaires are taxed extra, she says, money will need to be seized from other programs — such as education and public safety — to salvage healthcare.

It’s just the opposite, critics argue: If billionaires flee the state to avoid the wealth tax, all programs will suffer in the long run because the golden geese no longer will be producing billions in annual tax revenue.

Actually, a better, more reliable solution than the billionaire tax for Democrats is to flip the House of Representatives in November. Win enough seats to seize control from Republicans. Maybe take over the Senate, too. Then restore adequate federal healthcare funding.

Some political infighters suspect that the union is using the threat of a ballot initiative to negotiate more healthcare money from the state budget.

“I think this whole thing is a bluff,” says Mike Murphy, a veteran political consultant who has been helping the opposition. “If you don’t want to see this thing on the ballot, make me happy by putting more money in the budget.

“But they picked the wrong time to rob an empty bank.”

The state government is running on red ink, with deficit estimates ranging from $3 billion (Newsom’s figure) to $18 billion (the legislative analyst’s). Even deeper holes are projected for the future.

Jimenez denies the measure is being used as a negotiating hammer.

“No,” she says. “Our focus is to qualify this for the ballot.”

If it does, there will probably be flocks of golden geese voting by absentee ballot in other states.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A political earthquake in mayor’s race makes election a referendum on L.A.’s future
Gavin’s exit, stage right: Tax billionaires, cut rents and other takeaways from California’s first gubernatorial debate
The L.A. Times Special: Real, fake or overblown? Sorting fact from fiction in fraud allegations surrounding Newsom, California

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

With 30 percent of polling stations reporting results, Anutin’s Bhumjaithai Party has a commanding lead.

Thailand’s ruling Bhumjaithai Party has taken an early lead in general elections, according to a preliminary vote count.

With around 30 percent of polling stations reporting results, the party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, took a commanding lead over the progressive People’s Party, showed partial results released by the country’s election commission.

The populist Pheu Thai Party, backed by the billionaire former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was jailed last year, was in third place, the results showed.

People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut appeared to concede defeat as the results came in, telling reporters, “We acknowledge that we did not come first.”

“We stand by our principle of respecting the party that finishes first and its right to form the government,” said Ruengpanyawut.

Nevertheless, the three-way battle is unlikely to see any single party win a clear majority, meaning parties will likely have to resort to coalition-building to form the next government.

Bhumjaithai, seen as the preferred choice of the royalist-military establishment, centred its campaign on economic stimulus and national security, tapping into nationalist fervour stoked by deadly border clashes with neighbouring Cambodia.

Its leader, caretaker premier Anutin, stepped in as prime minister last September, after his predecessor, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, was forced out of office for an ethics violation.

Threatened with a no-confidence vote, Anutin dissolved the National Assembly or parliament in December to call a snap election.

The rival People’s Party, which many had expected to win a plurality of seats, had promised to curb the influence of the military and the courts, as well as break up economic monopolies. Pheu Thai campaigned on economic revival and populist pledges like cash handouts.

Al Jazeera’s Tony Cheng, reporting from Bangkok, said there was a sentiment of “political fatigue” in the run-up to elections, but voters turning out Sunday were still hopeful about the prospect for change.

Constitutional referendum

Thai voters were also ‌asked during the vote to decide if a new constitution should replace a 2017 charter, a military-backed document that critics say concentrates power in undemocratic institutions, including a powerful Senate that is chosen through an indirect selection process with limited public participation.

The election commission’s early count showed voters backing constitutional change ‌by a margin of nearly two to one.

Thailand has had 20 constitutions since the end of absolute monarchy in ⁠1932, with most of the changes following military coups.

If voters back the drafting of a new national charter, the new government and lawmakers can start the amendment process in parliament with two more referendums required to adopt a new constitution.

“I believe that the party that wins in the next election will have an outsized influence on the direction of constitutional reform, whether we move away from the junta-drafted constitution or not,” said Napon Jatusripitak of the Bangkok-based Thailand Future think tank.

You may have missed it, what with President Trump’s endless pyrotechnics, but California voters will decide in November who succeeds Gavin Newsom, the highest-profile governor since the Terminator returned to Hollywood.

Unfortunately for those attempting to civically engage, the current crop of contenders is, shall we say, less than enthralling.

In alphabetical order (because there is seriously no prohibitive front-runner), the major candidates are Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, John Slavet, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee.

Whew! (Pause to catch breath.)

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.

Here, they discuss the race that has Californians sitting on neither pins nor needles.

Chabria: Mark, I do this for a living and I’m having trouble summoning up any interest in this race — yet, anyway.

Part of my problem is that national events are so all-consuming and fast-moving that it’s hard to worry about potholes. I admit, I appreciate that our White House-contending governor is fighting the big fight. But remind me again, what’s a governor supposed to do?

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.

It’s always special for Bob Baffert to win the Robert B. Lewis Stakes, since the race is named after the late owner of Silver Charm, one of the trainer’s six Kentucky Derby champions.

Winning the Lewis also is as familiar to Baffert as looking in the mirror and seeing white hair. Saturday’s victory by Plutarch was the eighth straight for Baffert in the $100,000 race for 3-year-olds, and his 14th in the race known until 2007 as the Santa Catalina Stakes.

What made Baffert a little emotional Saturday was his other victory, with Splendora in a $200,000 Grade 2 race that used to be known as the Santa Monica Stakes. The name was changed this year in honor of a friend and fellow Hall of Fame trainer who died last summer.

“When I saw that this race was renamed for D. Wayne Lukas, I wanted to win this one,” Baffert told reporters at Santa Anita. “I miss him. I miss talking to him. He would have loved this.”

It would be easy for anyone to love training or just watching Splendora, a 5-year-old daughter of Audible who won her fourth straight start and her first since last fall’s Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint. The 2-5 favorite cruised to a 2¾-length victory over Me and Molly McGee in 1:22.09 for seven furlongs.

“She is such a good filly. She just gives me chills,” Baffert said. “She missed the break and got behind, but Juan [Hernandez] rode her with a lot of confidence.”

It was the eighth win in the race for Baffert, who now leads Lukas by two. Lukas’ last victory in the race came in 1996 with the Hall of Famer Serena’s Song, owned by Lewis and his wife, Beverly. It was the next year that Baffert and the Lewises combined to win their first Derby with Silver Charm.

Whether Baffert has another Derby winner in Plutarch won’t be known for 12 weeks, but the colt certainly has the bloodlines. Into Mischief has been the leading sire in North America (by earnings) for the last seven years, including Derby winners Authentic (for Baffert), Mandaloun and Sovereignty, while Plutarch’s dam, Stellar Wind, was the 3-year-old champion filly in 2015.

Plutarch, with Florent Geroux aboard, outruns Intrepid, with Hector I. Berrios aboard, to win the Grade 3 $100,000 Robert B. Lewis Stakes at Santa Anita Park on Saturday.

(Benoit Photo via Associated Press)

“This horse reminds me of Authentic,” Baffert said. “He keeps getting better every week. I don’t think distance will be a problem with him. This is very exciting. He’s legit.”

Plutarch lost his first four starts, including three in stakes races, before winning a maiden race on the final day of Del Mar’s fall meeting. That race and two others were on grass; Baffert said he did that because he wanted to get the colt in some races.

The surprise Saturday was how close Plutarch was to the lead, tracking the equally surprising pacesetter Intrepido through solid fractions of 47.65 for a half-mile and 1:11.35 for six furlongs. Baffert expected his 6-5 favorite, Desert Gate, to be on the lead, but the horse broke slowly and had to settle about a length and a half off the lead in the bunched field of seven.

Plutarch pushed ahead of Intrepido entering the stretch and the two dueled for most of the last quarter-mile, with Plutarch winning by three-quarters of a length in 1:37.02. He paid $10.20 as the co-third choice with the runner-up. Secured Freedom (3-1) edged Desert Gate for third.

“The longer the better,” said winning rider Florent Geroux, who just this week relocated to California from the Louisiana and Kentucky circuit. “He is a colt who has finally put it together this year. I watched some of his replays from last year and from what Bob told me, it looked like the horse was still a little bit green, trying to figure out what was going on during the race. But today, I felt he broke very alertly for me and put me in a great spot. When I asked him to move along the lane he responded really well.”

Intrepido defeated Desert Gate and Plutarch last October at Santa Anita in the Grade 1 American Pharoah, but finished a disappointing fifth later that month in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile. Trainer Jeff Mullins said he was pleased with the bounce-back.

“I really didn’t expect him to be on the lead … but he breaks [fast] like that, you’ve got to go with it,” Mullins said. “To be off that long, I’m happy with his race.”

Plutarch earned 20 Kentucky Derby points, giving him 23, tied with Intrepido for third in the standings. Silent Tactic, who won Friday’s Southwest Stakes at Oaklawn in Arkansas, and Renegade, winner of the Sam F. Davis Stakes on Saturday at Tampa Bay Downs, lead with 25. It usually takes about 40 points to get into the Derby.

One of Baffert’s recent Lewis winners captured the Derby, though Medina Spirit (2021) later was disqualified. Newgate (2023) went on to win the Santa Anita Handicap as a 4-year-old, while Nysos (2024) and Citizen Bull (2025) ran one-two in last year’s Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile.

The next race for 3-year-olds at Santa Anita is the San Felipe Stakes on March 7, followed by the Santa Anita Derby on April 4.

Notable

Three of the top four finishers from the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies make up three-quarters of the short field in Sunday’s featured Las Virgenes Stakes. Super Corredora, trained by John Sadler, won the Oct. 31 race at Del Mar and was named champion 2-year-old filly, with Baffert’s Explora second and Michael McCarthy’s Meaning fourth. Explora is the only one of the trio to race since; she won the Santa Ynez Stakes on Jan. 10. First post on Super Bowl Sunday is earlier than normal at 11 a.m.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman is running for mayor, shaking up the field of candidates one final time.

Raman said she will challenge Mayor Karen Bass, her onetime ally, campaigning on issues of housing and homelessness, transparency and “safety in our streets.”

In an interview, Raman called Bass “an icon” and someone she deeply admires. But she said the city needs a change agent to address its problems.

“I have deep respect for Mayor Bass. We’ve worked closely together on my biggest priorities and her biggest priorities, and there’s significant alignment there,” said Raman, who lives in Silver Lake. “But over the last few months in particular, I’ve really begun to feel like unless we have some big changes in how we do things in Los Angeles, that the things we count on are not going to function anymore.”

Saturday’s announcement — hours before the noon filing deadline for the June 2 primary election — capped a chaotic week in L.A. politics, with candidates and would-be candidates dropping in and out of the race to challenge Bass, who is seeking a second four-year term.

Raman would immediately pose a formidable challenge to Bass. She was the first council member to be elected with support from the Democratic Socialists of America, which scored an enormous victory last fall with the election of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Councilmember Nithya Raman jumps in the race for mayor, challenging former ally Karen Bass in the June primary.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

At the same time, Raman has deep ties to leaders in the YIMBY movement, who have pushed for the city to boost housing production by upzoning single-family neighborhoods and rewriting Measure ULA, the so-called mansion tax, which applies to property sales of $5.3 million or more.

Raman’s eleventh-hour announcement caps what has been the most turbulent candidate filing period for an L.A. mayoral election in at least a generation. She launched her bid less than a day after another political heavyweight, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, decided against a run.

Until Raman’s surprise entry, the field had seemed to be clear of big-name challengers. Former L.A. schools superintendent Austin Beutner ended his campaign on Thursday, citing the death of his 22-year-old daughter. That same day, real estate developer Rick Caruso reaffirmed his decision not to run.

Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman did not immediately provide comment.

Raman’s announcement comes as Bass continues to face sharp criticism over the city’s handling of the Palisades fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. Unlike some of the candidates, Raman has not publicly criticized Bass about the city’s preparation for, or response to, the disaster.

Bass, 72, faces more than two dozen opponents from across the political spectrum.

Reality TV star Spencer Pratt, a Republican, has received praise from an array of Trump supporters, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, of Florida. Pratt has focused heavily on the city’s handling of the fire, which destroyed his home.

Spencer Pratt poses for a portrait in Pacific Palisades.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Democratic socialist Rae Huang is running against the mayor from her political left. Huang has called for more public housing and for a reduction in the number of police officers, with the cost savings poured into other city services.

Brentwood tech entrepreneur Adam Miller, who has described himself as a lifelong Democrat, said the city is on a downward trajectory and needs stronger management. The 56-year-old nonprofit executive plans to tap his personal wealth to jump-start his campaign.

Also in the race is Asaad Alnajjar, an employee of the Bureau of Street Lighting who sits on the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council. Alnajjar has already lent his campaign $80,000.

At City Hall, Raman’s entrance into the mayor’s race is a bombshell, particularly given her relationship with Bass.

Mayor Karen Bass addresses the crowd at the Shine LA event at Hansen Dam Recreation Area in Lake View Terrace, Calif., on Saturday.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

In December 2022, not long after taking office, Bass launched her Inside Safe program, which moves homeless people indoors, in Raman’s district.

Two years later, while running for reelection, Raman prominently featured Bass on at least a dozen of her campaign mailers and door hangers. Raman’s campaign produced a video ad that heavily excerpted Bass’ remarks endorsing her at a Sherman Oaks get-out-the-vote rally.

Raman, whose district stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, ultimately won reelection with 50.7% of the vote. In the years that followed, she continued to praise Bass’ leadership.

In November, while appearing at a DSA election night watch party for Mamdani, Raman told The Times that Bass is “the most progressive mayor we’ve ever had in L.A.”

Last month, Bass formally announced that she had secured Raman’s endorsement, featuring her in a list of a dozen San Fernando Valley political leaders who backed her reelection campaign.

Raman ran for office in 2020, promising to put in place stronger tenant protections and provide a more effective, humane approach to combating homelessness. On her campaign platform, she called for the transformation of the LAPD into a “much smaller, specialized armed force” — but never specified what exactly that would mean.

A woman takes a photo with her phone at the C. Erwin Piper Technical Center on Saturday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Since then, the LAPD has lost about 1,300 officers — a decrease of about 13%. The City Council has put in place new eviction protections for tenants, while also capping the size of rent increases in the city’s “rent stabilized” apartments, which were mostly built before October 1978.

Raman does not face the same political risks as Horvath, who had already been running for reelection in her Westside and San Fernando Valley district. Horvath, had she run for mayor, would have had to forfeit her seat on the county Board of Supervisors.

If Raman loses, she would still hold her council seat, since she does not face reelection until 2028.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass was having a really bad week.

But then it turned into a pretty good week, and she must have breathed a sigh of relief.

Until the Saturday morning surprise.

I had to set fire to my scorecard, and to the column I had just drafted, which touched on all the expected big-name challengers who had bowed out of the mayoral race in the past several days: L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, billionaire businessman Rick Caruso (who forced a runoff with Bass the last time around), and former L.A. Unified schools chief Austin Beutner.

It was looking as though we wouldn’t get a badly needed, monthslong, toe-to-toe face-off about all that’s right and wrong in the sprawling metropolis of high hopes and low expectations. In a conversation I had with Loyola Marymount University’s Fernando Guerra, a decades-long observer of the local political scene, he made this observation about the dull political season that was shaping up:

“What is interesting to me is that no one from the establishment political class is running against [Bass] when she is clearly vulnerable.”

Vulnerable because of her handling of the Palisades fire and its aftermath.

Vulnerable because of limited progress on core issues such as homelessness, housing affordability and the shameful condition of streets, sidewalks and parks.

But then came Saturday morning, when, in an unexpected move, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman decided to step up, injecting a new element of drama into the race.

It was a surprise because Raman and Bass are not political enemies. In fact, they’ve largely been allies and have endorsed each other’s reelection bids.

So what was Raman thinking in signing up for a challenge in which she is clearly the underdog?

“I have deep respect for Mayor Bass. We’ve worked closely together on my biggest priorities and her biggest priorities, and there’s significant alignment there,” Raman told The Times. “But over the last few months in particular, I’ve really begun to feel like unless we have some big changes in how we do things in Los Angeles, that the things we count on are not going to function anymore.”

There’s more to it than that, in political terms. Raman is to the left of Bass and the traditional left in Los Angeles. She and three other council members supported by the Democratic Socialists of America have changed the conversation at City Hall, with more emphasis on social service, housing and labor issues, and less on traditional law enforcement.

Among their supporters are renters, immigrants, young adults, the underserved, and the frontline workers in the minimum-wage economy.

Raman’s candidacy — along with DSA candidates for other city offices — makes the election something of a referendum on the evolving center of political clout in L.A. It raises the question of whether the city is ready to blow things up and move further in the direction of New York City, which just elected as mayor the ultra-progressive Zohran Mamdani.

And for all of that, it also raises the question of whether progressives can both deliver on their promises and also balance a budget. No easy task, there.

As for Bass, you don’t get as far in politics as she has — from the state Legislature to Congress to City Hall — without sharp survival skills and without collecting friends you can count on, even when the road to reelection is filled with potholes.

And even when an ally comes after you.

“Wow, what a surprise,” Guerra said upon Raman’s entry into the race.

He considers her a formidable foe who was the first to prove “that the DSA can win in Los Angeles” and who brings several advantages to a campaign against Bass.

For one, she has a record of some success on homelessness in her district and was involved in that cause in the Silver Lake area before she was in public office, when she identified a startling lack of coordination and continuity. And by virtue of her age, 44, she’s aligned with younger voters hungry for change in political leadership.

It’s possible that with Raman in the race, and the nuts-and-bolts issues of governance now center stage, there will be slightly less emphasis on Bass’s handling and mishandling of the Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of properties, wiped out a vibrant community and killed 12 people.

When I said at the top of this column that Bass was having a really bad week, I was referring to the Palisades fire and the latest story from Times investigative reporters Alene Tchekmedyian and Paul Pringle. They had already established that the Los Angeles Fire Department had failed to pre-deploy adequately for the fire, and that it had failed to extinguish an earlier fire that later triggered the epic disaster.

The reporters had also established that the so-called “after-action” report on the fire had been altered to downplay failures by the department and the city, all of which was scandalous enough.

But on Wednesday, Tchekmedyian and Pringle reported that Bass was involved in the revisions despite her earlier denials. The mayor “wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public,” according to sources.

Bass vehemently denied the allegations and blasted The Times. But even before the latest story, Bass’s Palisades report card was one that a prudent person might have fed to the dog. She had left the country just before the fire despite warnings of potentially cataclysmic conditions. And multiple other missteps followed, including the botched hiring and early departure of a rebuilding czar.

Raman has not targeted Bass’ handling of the fire, and we’ll see if that changes. I don’t consider the response to the ICE raids to be a point of contention between Raman and Bass. One of the mayor’s strengths in office has been her defense of the city’s immigrants and her pushback against President Trump.

“Bass gets high marks resisting ICE,” Guerra said of polling and public opinion surveys he has either conducted or reviewed. “But on other issues, including homelessness, she does not do well.”

Two-thirds of voters in one poll said they would not back Bass in the June primary, Guerra said. But that poll did not offer an alternative to Bass, and now there is one.

Actually, several. The others include Brentwood tech entrepreneur Adam Miller, who’s got money to spend; reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, a Republican who lost his Palisades home and has been hammering the mayor; and minister/community organizer Rae Huang, a Democratic socialist.

Do they matter, given the odds against them and the entry of Raman into the race?

Yes, they might. Bass needs more than 50% of the June primary vote to win outright. But with Raman and the others grabbing varying percentages of the vote, a two-person November runoff is likely and the candidates will almost surely be Bass and Raman.

After a crazy week in L.A., allies are now foes.

And the race for mayor just got interesting.

steve.lopez@latimes.com