winners

Fifa will present World Cup rings to the winners of Sunday’s final between Argentina and Spain, which will be attended by Donald Trump.

Winner rings are a tradition in American sport, with the NFL’s Super Bowl victors presented with them.

Thirty rings will be made available to the world champions, and a further 1,996 rings will go on sale to fans. Each ring will include a mini World Cup trophy in its design and an engraving in the band.

President Trump, who is to present the trophy, has not attended any of the 102 World Cup games so far, missing all of the USA’s matches before they went out to Belgium in the last 16.

There is a weather warning in New York over air quality caused by wildfires in Canada, but there is no suggestion the final at MetLife Stadium will be affected.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino had already said Trump would attend the final and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has confirmed he will.

The relationship between Infantino and Trump has been at the heart of the biggest controversy at this summer’s World Cup, with the US president calling the Fifa chief to seek a review of United States striker Folarin Balogun’s red card.

The subsequent decision to suspend Balogun’s automatic ban was heavily criticised, with questions raised about the integrity of the tournament.

Balogun was allowed to feature in the knockout game against Belgium, but the USA suffered a 4-1 thrashing.

No other red or yellow cards have been suspended during this World Cup, despite France and England appealing to have their own respective incidents reviewed.

The 16 host cities across the US, Canada and Mexico have been welcoming an influx of fans and tourists boosting hospitality, hotels and local businesses.

But while the Scots drank Boston dry and have won the heart of the city and its people, experts say the long-term economic benefits are minimal.

Fifa estimated some $41bn would be added to the global economy, of which $17bn would boost the US economy alone, with 185,000 jobs created, mostly in hospitality and accommodation.

But Alexander Budzier, a fellow in management practice at Oxford University and chief executive of project management company Oxford Global Projects, says the long-term economic benefits of hosting such a big sporting event just do not materialise.

Host cities actually typically see a big drop in visitors, he says, as many seek to avoid the tournament chaos.

And while there may be a spike in hiring, he argues it is typically only for lower-paid jobs in hospitality. “It creates jobs, but it does not create wealth,” he says.

Official figures show that hiring in US pubs, bars and restaurants ramped up ahead of the tournament in May, but the boom was short-lived.

The only “worthwhile” economic benefit, Budzier argues, is the regeneration projects that can be done, such as the redevelopment and housing built in Stratford in London following the 2012 Olympic Games.

But due to much of this World Cup using existing stadia, hotels, training complexes and travel infrastructure, “there won’t be any economic benefits from development”.

So who are the losers, besides fans who have forked out high prices for tickets to see free-flowing, entertaining football – only for the game to be stopped in each half?

Well, World Cup debutants Curacao were in dreamland after equalising to make it 1-1 against Germany shortly before a first-half drinks break in Houston on Sunday.

However, the smallest nation ever to play at the World Cup, by size and population, were not the same when play resumed and lost 7-1 after the drinks break allowed the Germans to regroup.

The Czech Republic were on top during the first half against South Korea, but the hydration break abruptly ended that spell of pressure, and when play resumed, they lost momentum.

Despite taking the lead, they ended up losing the game 2-1.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands led Japan 2-1 going into the second-half hydration break in Arlington, Texas, on Sunday. They failed to hold on and drew 2-2.

Hydration breaks are not always the cause of these momentum shifts, of course.

But the further we go into the tournament, the more it should become clear whether the interruptions are becoming a major factor.

Former Arsenal and England forward Ian Wright made it clear where he stood on the breaks.

“I just think it’s another way of getting adverts into it from an American point of view,” he said.

US broadcaster Fox US overran adverts, external during a hydration break in the opening match of the tournament between Mexico and South Africa.

“They’ve used the fact that it’s for the players, but it’s not for me,” added Wright.

While the breaks have their detractors, there are others who believe they are a positive introduction.

“I am always interested in the health of my players. I think it’s the right measure, a pause, freshen up and continue,” said Spain boss Luis de la Fuente before his side’s opening game against debutants Cape Verde on Monday (17:00 BST).

That match is taking place in Atlanta where the venue has a retractable roof and is temperature controlled.

“Tomorrow, it’s chilled temperatures in the stadium,” added De la Fuente on Sunday.

“Throughout the week, we’ve seen huge temperatures. It’s very difficult to be exposed to these temperatures for so long when you’re working.

“In my opinion, the best thing to do is to drink lots of water. Take a break, let them breathe for a few seconds.

“It’s not going to be that hot [on Monday] but we need to let them breathe and then one or two minutes to give them a couple of directions.”

The 79th Tony Awards return to Radio City Music Hall on Sunday to celebrate the best of Broadway. Pop-star Pink hosts the show for the first time, and while she hasn’t been on Broadway yet herself, her songs have been featured in the musicals “Moulin Rouge!” and “& Juliet.”

The broadcast airs air live beginning at 5 p.m. on CBS and Paramount+, but don’t sleep on the annual pre-show, “The Tony Awards: Act One,” where the first round of Tonys will be presented. It will stream live on free service Pluto TV starting at 3:35 p.m. and be hosted by Tony Award nominee Laura Benanti and actor Tituss Burgess.

Times staff writer Eloise Rollins-Fife wrote a complete guide on how to watch and everything you need to know.

Play

“The Balusters”
“Giant”
“Liberation”
“Little Bear Ridge Road”

Musical

“The Lost Boys”
“Schmigadoon!”
“Titaníque”
“Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Revival of a play

Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman”
Gina Gionfriddo, “Becky Shaw”
Duncan Macmillan and Jonny Donahoe, “Every Brilliant Thing”
“Fallen Angels”
Robert Icke, “Oedipus”

Revival of a musical

“Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
“Ragtime”
Richard O’Brien’s “The Rocky Horror Show”

Performance by an actress in a leading role in a musical

Sara Chase, “Schmigadoon!”
Stephanie Hsu, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Caissie Levy, “Ragtime”
Marla Mindelle, “Titaníque”
Christiani Pitts, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Performance by an actor in a leading role in a musical

Nicholas Christopher, “Chess”
Luke Evans, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Joshua Henry, “Ragtime”
Sam Tutty, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Brandon Uranowitz, “Ragtime”

Performance by an actress in a leading role in a play

Rose Byrne, “Fallen Angels”
Carrie Coon, “Bug”
Susannah Flood, “Liberation”
Lesley Manville, “Oedipus”
Kelli O’Hara, “Fallen Angels”

Performance by an actor in a leading role in a play

Will Harrison, “Punch”
Nathan Lane, “Death of a Salesman”
John Lithgow, “Giant”
Daniel Radcliffe, “Every Brilliant Thing”
Mark Strong, “Oedipus”

Book of a musical

David Hornsby and Chris Hoch, “The Lost Boys”
Cinco Paul, “Schmigadoon!”
Marla Mindelle, Constantine Rousouli and Tye Blue, “Titaníque”
Jim Barne and Kit Buchan, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Original score

Music: Caroline Shaw, “Death of a Salesman”
Music: Steve Bargonetti, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Music and lyrics: The Rescues, “The Lost Boys”
Music and lyrics: Cinco Paul, “Schmigadoon!”
Music and lyrics: Jim Barne and Kit Buchan, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”

Performance by an actor in a featured role in a play

Christopher Abbott, “Death of a Salesman”
Danny Burstein, “Marjorie Prime”
Brandon J. Dirden, “Waiting for Godot”
Alden Ehrenreich, “Becky Shaw”
Ruben Santiago-Hudson, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Richard Thomas, “The Balusters”

Performance by an actress in a featured role in a play

Betsy Aidem, “Liberation”
Marylouise Burke, “The Balusters”
Aya Cash, “Giant”
Laurie Metcalf, “Death of a Salesman”
June Squibb, “Marjorie Prime”

Performance by an actor in a featured role in a musical

Ali Louis Bourzgui, “The Lost Boys”
André De Shields, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Bryce Pinkham, “Chess”
Ben Levi Ross, “Ragtime”
Layton Williams, “Titaníque”

Performance by an actress in a featured role in a musical

Shoshana Bean, “The Lost Boys”
Hannah Cruz, “Chess”
Rachel Dratch, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Ana Gasteyer, “Schmigadoon!”
Nichelle Lewis, “Ragtime”

Scenic design of a play

Hildegard Bechtler, “Oedipus”
Takeshi Kata, “Bug”
David Korins, “Dog Day Afternoon”
Chloe Lamford, “Death of a Salesman”
David Rockwell, “Fallen Angels”

Scenic design of a musical

dots, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Soutra Gilmour, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Rachel Hauck, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Dane Laffrey, “The Lost Boys”
Scott Pask, “Schmigadoon!”

Costume design of a play

Brenda Abbandandolo, “Dog Day Afternoon”
Qween Jean, “Liberation”
Jeff Mahshie, “Fallen Angels”
Emilio Sosa, “The Balusters”
Paul Tazewell, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”

Costume design of a musical

Linda Cho, “Ragtime”
Linda Cho, “Schmigadoon!”
Qween Jean, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Ryan Park, “The Lost Boys”
David I. Reynoso, “The Rocky Horror Show”

Lighting design of a play

Isabella Byrd, “Dog Day Afternoon”
Natasha Chivers, “Oedipus”
Stacey Derosier, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Heather Gilbert, “Bug”
Heather Gilbert, “The Fear of 13”
Jack Knowles, “Death of a Salesman”

Lighting design of a musical

Kevin Adams, “Chess”
Jane Cox, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Donald Holder, “Schmigadoon!”
Adam Honoré, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Adam Honoré and Donald Holder with 59 Studio, “Ragtime”
Jen Schriever and Michael Arden, “The Lost Boys”

Sound design of a play

Justin Ellington, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone”
Tom Gibbons, “Oedipus”
Lee Kinney, “The Fear of 13”
Josh Schmidt, “Bug”
Mikaal Sulaiman, “Death of a Salesman”

Sound design of a musical

Kai Harada, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Kai Harada, “Ragtime”
Adam Fisher, “The Lost Boys”
Brian Ronan, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Walter Trarbach, “Schmigadoon!”

Direction of a play

Nicholas Hytner, “Giant”
Robert Icke, “Oedipus”
Kenny Leon, “The Balusters”
Joe Mantello, “Death of A Salesman”
Whitney White, “Liberation”

Direction of a musical

Michael Arden, “The Lost Boys”
Lear deBessonet, “Ragtime”
Christopher Gattelli, “Schmigadoon!”
Tim Jackson, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Zhailon Levingston and Bill Rauch, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”

Choreography

Christopher Gattelli, “Schmigadoon!”
Ellenore Scott, “Ragtime”
Ani Taj, “The Rocky Horror Show”
Omari Wiles and Arturo Lyons, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”
Lauren Yalango-Grant and Christopher Cree Grant, “The Lost Boys”

Orchestrations

Doug Besterman and Mike Morris, “Schmigadoon!”
Ethan Popp, Kyler England, Adrianne “AG” Gonzalez and Gabriel Mann, “The Lost Boys”
Lux Pyramid, “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)”
Brian Usifer, “Chess”
Andrew Lloyd Webber, David Wilson, Trevor Holder and Doug Schadt, “Cats: The Jellicle Ball”

Animals at Guadalajara Zoo in Mexico are making their own predictions for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Elephants, gorillas, a puma and giraffes picked winners from a selection of upcoming matches, continuing a World Cup tradition made famous by Paul the Octopus, who correctly predicted 12 of 14 results at the 2010 tournament.

For the sixth and final time before votes are counted, the leading contenders for California governor gathered Thursday night for a televised debate, this one a 90-minute session in San Francisco.

Times columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria absorbed the rhetorical blows, followed the heated back-and-forths and took in each and every one of the candidates’ myriad policy prescriptions. Here’s their assessment:

Arellano: Near the end of the debate, co-moderator and San Francisco Examiner editor-in-chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas groaned as candidates talked over each other while trying to answer a question that was supposed to elicit a yes or no response.

That’s pretty much how California voters have reacted to this primary.

In an era where politics are far too often about choosing the least worst option, voters in this election are left with the political version of the Angels baseball team.

No candidate has polled higher than 20-some percent — a testament to how many are in the running, but also an indication that none of them has truly captured the zeitgeist of today’s California.

This year’s debates have done little to catapult anyone to the top, and tonight was more of the same. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for, and no one inspired me to side with them. No one offered a clear vision of how they would pull Californians out of a spiritual malaise that has so many of us leaving the state, or thinking about leaving.

Instead, what I heard too many of the candidates evoke was the glories of the past — their past.

Antonio Villaraigosa’s closing remarks made a mantra out of “Dream with me,” a slogan he used back when he was L.A. mayor — that was 13 years ago.

Xavier Becerra bragged about how he stood up to President Trump as California attorney general — that was five years ago.

Katie Porter pulled out a white notebook with something written on it and directly challenged Becerra to answer a question — a callback to her time as a congressmember grilling people on Capitol Hill with a whiteboard and a marker, which she first made famous seven years ago.

The two Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, spoke of a halcyon California destroyed by feckless Democrats and vowed a return to those days.

The only candidates who didn’t live in the past were San José Mayor Matt Mahan and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer — but they seemed particularly out of their league, with Steyer too often looking down at notes instead of speaking off the cuff with his well-rehearsed populist pluck.

The word “nostalgia” first emerged to describe what doctors back then considered a malady, thinking it unwise to long for the past. It’s a concept historically antithetical to California, long boosted as the land of today and tomorrow by everyone from the Mission fathers to orange barons, developers to politicians. Indeed, nostalgia has sometimes been a dangerous factor in California politics, unleashing the Spanish fantasy heritage movement, Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and all sorts of other nonsense.

The two candidates who advance to the general election would be wise to offer Californians a hope for the future that doesn’t call back to our yesterdays. For now, the only real winners are the political consultants, and the only real losers are Californians, because we still don’t know for sure that any of the candidates can make things better.

All we can expect is that they’ll turn things for the worse.

Barabak: A popular expression — which Steyer mentioned — defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

By that measure, was the audience for Thursday night’s throwdown insane? Masochistic? Or a group of high-minded, dutiful, quite-conscientious California voters?

The leading gubernatorial candidates have been at this so long that they’re like actors in a stage troupe, delivering well-rehearsed lines, or an old band getting together to play their greatest hits, though far less melodious.

Among those reprising familiar roles were Steyer as the boastful billionaire; Bianco as the angry white avenger; Hilton as the chipper doomsayer; Mahan as the kid brother insinuating his way into the conversation; Porter as the left-wing tribune promising a progressive Valhalla; and Villaraigosa as the old political war horse.

Once more, Becerra was the focal point of attacks, befitting his newfound status as the candidate to beat. “This is what happens when you take the lead in polls,” he rightly noted.

And so rivals again assailed Becerra’s performance as state attorney general and Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. They accused of him being a shill for Big Oil. They tried, implying guilt-through-association, to rope Becerra into the scandal involving his former aides who embezzled from a dormant campaign account.

(Becerra, crisper and more lively than he’s previously been, noted that prosecutors in the case have described him as a victim and not a perpetrator or co-conspirator.)

It’s hard to see all the jostling and thrown elbows making a huge difference. The promises made and attacks scattered like buckshot on the San Francisco soundstage all seem much less important than the numbers that show up in opinion polls between now and Election Day.

Many Democrats, spooked by the prospect of their party being frozen out in June’s top-two primary, have been clinging to their ballots, intending to vote at the last moment for whichever Democrat appears likeliest to finish first.

In that way, the race seems to be shaping up as less a competition than a self-fulfilling prophecy. And Thursday night’s performance, while not wholly irrelevant, was just another television rerun broadcast to a less-than-mass audience.

Chabria: Here’s what I’ll say about Thursday night: It was a debate. The old-school kind where everybody is mostly well-behaved and polite, and the audience scrolls on their phones to stay awake.

The candidates themselves seemed low-energy, even with their jabs — which were largely directed at Becerra, as Mark said.

But no sparks also means we have more clarity. Barring an Eric Swalwell-style blow-up, the top three — Becerra, Steyer and Hilton — are really the only true contenders.

But I’ll give a shout-out to Porter, who had her best performance to date with answers that were clear and laid out policy with detail. Still, I fear it’s too little, too late.

Becerra, on the other hand, seemed subdued to the point of flat (sorry, Mark, he came off crisp like a week-old apple to me) often relying on the line that he sued Trump more than a hundred times as attorney general of California during Trump’s first term. I’m not sure that’s inspiring, though it did lead to some court victories.

Granted, Becerra has had a hard week, with a gaffe with a reporter that went viral and a plea deal by a former aide in that case of money misappropriated from his dormant campaign account. It’s not clear yet if voters care about either of those glitches — but if they stick in people’s minds, that could open a path for Steyer to scrape up the small margin he needs to get through the primary.

But Thursday night also did little to help Steyer’s cause — or hurt it. He made some clear, forceful points that positioned him as the changemaker progressive, especially around his policies on moving away from fossil fuels. He also had some convoluted answers that didn’t land. He didn’t give undecided voters much to work with.

I’ll end with one answer from Hilton that women should pay attention to: He said that if elected, he would allow California abortion providers to be extradited to states such as Louisiana to face criminal charges for mailing abortion medications.

Women across the U.S. now must rely on states such as California for any access to abortion care. Hilton’s position is not just bad for California but presents a risk to women everywhere.

For me, that answer should disqualify him for the highest office in our pro-choice state.

Karen Bass, Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman each came into tonight’s mayoral debate with goals for what may be their only time together on stage.

As the incumbent mayor, Bass had to weather blows from her challengers while trying to sell voters on her fitness for another term, despite a disastrous 2025.

As a reality TV star with no political experience, Pratt needed to show that he could offer substance instead of just AI fanboy videos and the name-calling — “Karen Basura” — he has indulged in on social media.

Raman’s task was perhaps the hardest. As a city councilmember whose two previous campaigns were backed by the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, she needed to convince Pratt-curious voters that she’s more conservative than Bass. Yet for others, she needed to appear liberal enough to peel away support from the mayor and come out as a progressive lioness to excite Democrats in a year where GOP candidates like Pratt have to answer for the disaster that is President Trump’s second term.

Only one of the three failed.

At times, Raman was tongue-tied trying to answer simple questions. Moderators kept telling her she was going over her time. Answering a yes/no question about whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in city elections, the councilmember went on and on, until the moderator cut her off.

While Raman offered some policy plans, she also played a card straight out of Trump’s arsenal. She claimed that Pratt and Bass were teaming up against her — an unlikely scenario that drew laughs from the audience. She got more and more frustrated, to the point that when Bass was allowed time for a rebuttal, she dejectedly proclaimed, “I haven’t been offered that in a lot of this debate.”

Raman, who had endorsed Bass’ reelection before throwing her hat in at the last minute, came off as inexperienced, touchy and unprepared.

The line of the night was Pratt dismissing Raman as a “random councilmember” — which is how the L.A. political world responded to her entry into the race. She was so upset about Pratt’s remark that she continued to whine about it to a KNBC reporter after the debate.

What’s shocking about Raman’s flop is that she should know how important it is to project well to a television audience, given that her husband is a screenwriter. Her tone was flat, when she needed to be passionate.

No one had to remind Pratt of that. He was parrying tough questions on a big stage for the first time, facing an audience who knew him only as the Angry L.A. White Guy he has reveled in playing.

He mostly succeeded.

At his best, Pratt came off as a boisterous bro with enough charm to call himself “humble” without coming off as obnoxious. He dominated the flow of conversation without coming off as commandeering, even interrupting Raman at times to let Bass speak. At one point, he even said “Sorry” when he had taken up too much time and the moderators cut him off.

He was light on specifics, other than saying he was going to do better than the others and that he would prioritize public safety above all. Instead, he was the one person on stage who used anecdotes to sell himself, citing conversations about abused animals, downtown workers too afraid to eat outside and film producers hiring local gang members to keep their shoots safe.

As a TV personality-turned-influencer, Pratt knows that storytelling is far more effective than drowning the audience in statistics, as Bass and Raman did.

But the bad Pratt flared up at times. He earned a reprimand from KNBC anchor and debate co-moderator Colleen Williams when he called the mayor an “incredible liar.” Affecting high-pitched voices to mock Bass and Raman came off as juvenile and possibly sexist. And when it came to last summer’s federal immigration raids that terrorized Southern California, Pratt appeared flummoxed when Bass pointed out that 70% of those arrested didn’t have criminal records — a use of stats that hit.

Bass was also who she had to be — measured, forceful and raring to defend her record, without coming off as defensive. She wasn’t exactly inspirational, but she didn’t have to be. The city’s powerful labor unions have backed her, along with much of the Democratic establishment.

Raman and Pratt are right in deeming Bass the old guard of a beat-up city — but the old guard didn’t get there without knowing how to win.

For the third time in as many weeks, the leading candidates for California governor met on the debate stage Tuesday night.

The latest installment was a two-hour session, hosted and carried live from Monterey Park by CNN. The debate marked the first time the candidates appeared before a national audience and came as mail ballots have begun arriving in homes throughout the state.

Columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria took in all 120 minutes, absorbed every zinger — scripted and otherwise — and dutifully observed each parry and thrust. Here’s what they took away:

Arellano: Antonio Villaraigosa finally rises above his gubernatorial rivals. Is it too late?

I wrote my thoughts about this debate while writing my next columna on … something, stopping to pay attention only when issues in my bailiwick like immigration and the failure of the Democratic Party were the subject of discussion. The rest of the time, what the candidates said came off as one giant shout-fest straight out of the studios of the late, great Wally George, with everyone playing true to form.

Chad Bianco raged, Steve Hilton tried to mask his MAGA-ness with his British accent. Katie Porter scolded, Tom Steyer channeled Bernie. Xavier Becerra did his best impression of the old Bunsen character from “The Muppet Show.” Matt Mahan was just … there.

You know who sounded the best? Antonio Villaraigosa.

Anyone who really knows the former L.A. mayor has always seen him as Chicano Prince Hal, someone who doesn’t take himself as seriously as he should. His infidelities effectively killed his political career after his mayoral years; his consulting for the nutritional supplement company Herbalife made Villaraigosa a walking joke among too many Latinos I know.

He has spent the last decade effectively embodying Marlon Brando’s famous quote in “On the Waterfront”: He coulda been a contender. Even his gubernatorial run, announced way before many of his opponents, has mostly had the air of a has-been — that’s one of the reasons why Villaraigosa has polled so low through most of the race to the point he was excluded from many of the early debates.

But that hangdog Villaraigosa was nowhere to be seen tonight.

His wisecracks were kept to a minimum. He stayed mostly within his time limits and didn’t interrupt much. He hammered Hilton over his refusal to admit that President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and his dismissal of undocumented immigrants.

Villaraigosa especially went hard on his forever frenemy Xavier Becerra on everything from his time as President Biden’s health secretary to how former staffers have been charged with stealing millions of dollars from his campaign funds. (Becerra has not been accused of any wrongdoing.)

When CNN co-moderator Elex Michaelson asked Villaraigosa if he would cancel California’s much-maligned high-speed rail project, the candidate’s emphatic “No” thundered down like a Lebron James dunk. He called out the waste on the multibillion-dollar project, said he revived L.A.’s subway to the sea, and spoke with a passionate gravitas that Becerra could only dream of doing.

“When I make a mistake, I’m accountable,” Villaraigosa said at the end of the debate. This sounded like a candidate who can win — and now he has a month to make a comeback worthy of his political mentor, the late, great Gloria Molina.

Four weeks to prove them wrong, Antonio.

Barabak: It was a no-hitter.

No startling breakthrough. No game-changing moment. No candidate so irresistibly charming he or she knocked the race akimbo and stamped themselves as the far-and-away front-runner in the slowly consolidating contest.

By now, the candidates are plowing well-furrowed ground.

To anyone who has watched each of the debates — and there may not be a great many of those viewers out there — it was all quite familiar.

What is new, and what may have been the draw for those just tuning in, is a sense the race is finally taking a coherent shape, with Xavier Becerra unexpectedly emerging as the candidate to beat.

A month ago, Eric Swalwell was a leading contender in the dozy contest and Becerra was an afterthought, being urged to quit for the sake of his dignity and the good of the Democratic Party. (Fears of a Democratic shutout in the June 2 primary have greatly receded.)

When Swalwell left the race and vacated his congressional seat amid allegations of sexual assault and other potentially illegal misconduct, it was widely assumed much of his support would move to either Steyer or Porter, the two other leading Democratic contenders.

But Becerra has been the clear-cut beneficiary and his new status was evident Tuesday night as he faced repeated attacks. He didn’t particularly dazzle, but that’s not his appeal. It’s his steadiness and seeming unflappability in a time of great upheaval and stress, and that was again evident.

With less than four weeks to election day — and voting already underway — time is waning for another dramatic shake-up like the one that took place between Swalwell’s implosion in April and Becerra’s surge in May.

It seems, however, as though little to nothing will change, with Becerra steadily gaining ground, Hilton consolidating GOP support and the remainder of the field looking for something — or someone — to drastically shake up the race one more time.

Chabria: I don’t know about a winner, but the debate definitely had a biggest loser: Bianco. The Riverside County sheriff, to his credit I guess, didn’t try for a hot second to hide who he really is — a conspiracy-loving immigration hardliner with ties to an extremist group.

Bianco sort-of said he was a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right organization best known for some of its members participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. He threw out election fraud theories, even suggesting state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta could be involved. He made it clear that undocumented folks are breaking the law by existing in the state.

Maybe some MAGA voters will stick by that shtick, but I’m guessing independents and more moderate Republicans will find Hilton, the Trump-endorsed Republican, even more appealing after Bianco’s ragey ramblings. Hilton may well be sending his opponent a thank-you note and a bottle of bubbly for that performance.

As for winners, a couple of the Democrats had their moments. Porter spoke with clarity and force on issues including single-payer healthcare (she supports it) and resisting Trump’s immigration policies in this state of immigrants.

But she also directly addressed the criticism of her having a bad temper in a way that I think may haunt her.

As her male opponents bickered back and forth, taking swipes at each other, Porter said that given all the “shouting” and “disrespect” onstage, she was shocked that “anyone wants to talk about my temperament.” It’s a pushback she tried out earlier in the week with a new advertisement that sought to make a punchline out of the criticism.

I get her point and I don’t think a male candidate would face the same scrutiny for yelling at a staffer as she has, but also — what’s more unappealing to voters than an angry woman? A complaining one. That moment of resistance against the narrative may not land the way she intends with voters.

I agree with Gustavo that Villaraigosa had a good night, and that Steyer had Bernie energy — which may be good.

Steyer was the most lively and direct he’s been in a debate, landing a few punches and making points with clarity (far less wonky than he’s been in the past). He’s owning his far-left politics, and labeling himself the “change-maker.”

Steyer has been trailing Becerra in the polls, but Becerra again had a steady if less-than-thrilling appearance. For fed-up Democrats, Steyer may be looking better all the time.