In the previous post, I discussed the peculiar features of the so-called ‘jungle primary’ system in California to be held on June 2 that is used to select which two candidates will face off against each other for the governorship in the general election in November. I also discussed the two leading Republican contenders whom I will definitely not be voting for.

Before we get to the Democratic candidates for governor, we have to remember that outgoing governor Gavin Newsom, while good at gaining visibility by trolling Trump on social media is far from progressive and very much a protector of the wealthy. His actions seem to be designed to gain media attention and name recognition to lay the groundwork for a run for president in 2028. John Nichols exposes the hollowness of Newsom

Gavin Newsom made headlines this winter by vowing to defeat a proposal for a one-time 5% tax on billionaires in the state…Last year, a Reuters-Ipsos poll reported that a whopping 86% of Democrats said “changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority.”
…

While pandering to business elites, Newsom has slashed budgets to assist the poor and near-poor with healthcare, housing and food – in a state where seven million live under the official poverty line and child poverty rates are the highest in the nation.

…

The latest Newsom budget, released in January, continues his trajectory away from social compassion. “The governor’s 2026-27 spending plan balances the budget by dodging the harsh realities of the Republican megabill, H.R. 1, and maintains state cuts to vital public supports, like Medi-Cal, enacted as part of the current-year budget,” the California Budget & Policy Center pointed out. “Governor Newsom’s reluctance to propose meaningful revenue solutions to help blunt the harm of federal cuts undermines his posture to counter the Trump administration.” The statement said that the proposed budget “will leave many Californians without food assistance and healthcare coverage.”.
…

Walters told me that Newsom “has generally avoided direct conflicts with his fellow millionaires, such as discouraging tax increases, and has danced between corporations and labor unions on bread-and-butter issues such as minimum wages. He’s also quietly moved away from environmental issues, most notably shifting from condemnation of the oil industry for price gouging and pollution to encouraging the industry to increase production and keep refineries operating.”
…

Newsom has also refused to protect workers’ rights. In 2023, he vetoed a bill to provide unemployment compensation to workers on strike. The following year he vetoed a bill to help protect farmworkers from violations of heat safety regulations, while temperatures in California’s agricultural fields spike above 110 degrees.

Newsom is a typical Democratic establishment neoliberal politician, talking a good game. but ultimately working against ordinary people to protect the interests of the wealthy.

Among the many Democratic candidates this year, it seems like only three have any meaningful chance of ending up in the first two slots. They are former congresswoman Katie Porter, former Obama cabinet member Xavier Becerra, and billionaire Tom Steyer.

My initial preference was Porter who was at one time the front-runner. She won her first congressional seat in 2018, upsetting her opponent in deeply conservative Orange County. In congress, she became well-known for doing her research that resulted in fact-based, tough questioning of people brought before her committees. But she is reported to have an abrasive management style and her snapping at a staffer during an interview and another incident in which she stormed off has caused her to drop in the polls. But she has an impressive list of endorsements, including Elizabeth Warren and many major labor unions.

Becerra is a centrist Democratic politician in the Newsom mold, beloved of the party establishment because of his unwillingness to take any real progressive stances but instead speak in general terms about the middle class. He would be the worst of the three, and I would vote for him only as the last resort.

This leaves Steyer, a billionaire. The word ‘billionaire’ alone should give anyone pause because like all billionaires, to get all his money he has undoubtedly engaged in highly unsavory and exploitative business practices that have hurt people and the environment, made even worse by him having been a hedge fund manager. He is using his own money to fund his campaign. I would normally write him off as a potential choice. But in this campaign, he is running on a very progressive platform that hits pretty much all the issues I care about and calling for massive taxes on the wealthy to pay for them, and he is viewed by some of them as a class traitor.

Many famous socialists of the past were class traitors, who used the privileges that they obtained from being members of the elite, especially education, to better turn against the elites. Steyer is by no means a socialist but a more pertinent question is whether he is a genuine class traitor (a label he has proudly adopted) or whether this is a facade to get votes in a progressive state. Steyer has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, as well as some progressive unions like SEIU and the California Nurses Union. Another point in his favor is that he is being attacked by some of the worst neoliberal elements of the Democratic party such as Neera Tanden, a Democratic Party operative and close advisor to Barack Obama.

Jeff Cohen, a progressive writer who says that, like all right thinking people, he loathes billionaires, suggests that Steyer might be the real deal, in the mold of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was in some ways a class traitor also.

As a progressive who watches too much television, when I see a Democratic candidate dominating the TV air war with ubiquitous campaign ads, I usually know that’s a Democrat I should oppose — the one being lavishly funded by wealthy corporate interests. And the ads are usually vapid and empty.

Living in California these past months, I’ve had to adjust my normal mindset. Because a Democrat who is running for governor and dominating the airwaves has put out one substantive ad after another, calling for taxing the wealthy, breaking up utility monopolies and standing up to Big Oil. Each ad could have been released by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — like the one featuring California Rep. Ro Khanna talking about taking on the “big insurance companies” to pass universal “single-payer healthcare” for California. Or the candidate’s video message denouncing AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee — “they’re attacking progressive Democrats every chance they get” — and the Democratic Party establishment for “not talking more forcefully” against the Iran war.

The candidate putting out all these progressive ads is billionaire Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager turned environmental advocate who is now self-funding his campaign to the tune of $130 million — so far.

Let me be clear: I generally loathe billionaires, hedge-funders and everyone in the financial speculation elite. I remain skeptical that someone as wealthy as Steyer, who operated at the heights of amoral financialized capitalism, can deeply understand and fight for working-class interests.

This left me in a quandary. A month ago, after seeing Steyer’s anti-AIPAC video attacking Democratic leaders for failing to “forcefully” oppose Trump’s war, I started an intense dialogue with progressives across California, including journalists, experienced activists and organizational leaders. Almost all — somewhat surprisingly or confusedly or embarrassingly — were arriving at the same conclusion: that the billionaire is the best choice for governor.  

Many had attended and been impressed by one of Steyer’s town hall forums across the state, where he kept his introductory remarks short in favor of long question-and-answer sessions with audiences. I found online memes from Amar Shergill — a Steyer supporter and activist I respect who formerly chaired the California Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus — including his charts comparing the Democratic field.

Make no mistake about it: Corporate lobbyists are horrified that Steyer might become California’s governor. To stop him, corporate forces and their allies in the Democratic establishment have moved from now-disgraced Rep. Eric Swalwell, who dropped out of the race after facing credible accusations of sexual assault, to former Rep. Xavier Becerra, who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden. Becerra, who won praise from the right-wing Murdoch press for pocketing the maximum campaign donation from Chevron, is now bending to the will of private interests on healthcare, according to KQED public radio.

Steyer’s unequivocal support of CalCare (California Guaranteed Healthcare for All), a single-payer, universal health system, is one of the reasons he’s been endorsed by Khanna and the California Nurses Association, and why RootsAction, an  organization I co-founded, came out in support of him on May 1.

One dividing-line issue among Democratic candidates is the California Billionaire Tax Act, a ballot initiative launched by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West that would impose a one-time emergency tax on the state’s 200 richest individuals to bolster healthcare. It’s supported by Steyer, Khanna and Sanders, and opposed by Newsom and billionaire friends like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and the company’s former executive chairman Eric Schmidt. (As a funder and activist, Steyer has used statewide ballot initiatives to win reforms on several issues, including Prop 39 in 2012, which closed a corporate tax loophole to fund green jobs and energy-efficiency in schools.)

There have been some new polls but they are all over the place, with Steyer and Becerra vying with Hilton for the top positions and Porter trailing. But even the top person is only getting around 20% because of so many candidates in the race.

So I find myself in a weird situation where, after railing against the oligarchy for the longest time, may end up voting for one of them, unless Porter regains lost ground and has a shot at ending up in the top two. Normally I vote early but given the complexities of this race, I am going to hold off until the very end.