This message comes from the NBC News podcast, Here's the Scoop. This month, senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett talks with experts and lawyers behind Supreme Court cases of the past and how those cases are shaping decisions today. Listen now on Here's the Scoop. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. And I'm Mara Elias and senior national political correspondent. And KQED's Guy Marzarotti is here with us. Hey, Guy. Hey, great to be with you both. So glad to have you on the pod because today on the show, we are talking about California's primary, which is one week from today. There's a crowded race for governor and a race for LA Mayor that's getting national attention. Guy, let's start with the governor's race. And I think we also just have to start by explaining that California has a top two primary system. Yeah, unique primary system. All the candidates, regardless of party, all 62 of them, in the case of the governor's race, are on the ballot together. 62? It's California. Yeah, there's, it's a long, I've got the ballot in the mail. It's many, many pages. But regardless of party, the top two finishers in that primary advance of the general election, it's looking more and more like kind of three candidates competing for two spots, Republican Steve Hilton and then two Democrats, Javier Becerra and Tom Steyer. And really, it's those two Democrats kind of closely divided in the polls competing for a spot in November. Tell us a little bit about these candidates. What, what should we know about them? What is their pitch? Yeah, so Steve Hilton, the leading Republican, he's actually a former advisor to David Cameron, the former UK prime minister. He then moved to the US and became a Fox News host and a commentator. Javier Becerra, you know, he was the state's former attorney general. There's a long history of AGs here becoming governor. They call it the, the position AG aspiring governor, Earl Warren, Pat Brown, George Duke, Magie and Jerry Brown. They all served as attorney general and then went on to win the governorship in California. Becerra also has a tenure as health and human services secretary in the Biden administration. And then Tom Steyer, who is an investor, a Democrat who made billions of dollars as a hedge fund manager. He's running on a platform of really progressive policies and also has an incredible amount of money behind him. He has given his own campaign over $213 million, which has smashed all self-funding records in California political history. Yeah, that is wild. The other thing that is just completely wild to me is that the primary is a week away and there really isn't still a clear front runner. People are still deciding how they're going to vote. That just seems so strange in California politics. Yeah, it's been a long time since we've had a scenario like this, this close to the primary without a clear front runner. And it's been, I mean, that's been the story of this whole campaign, right? It's been twists and turns of candidates getting in and out, not running, Kamala Harris deciding not to run, US Senator Alex Padilla not running, our current Attorney General Rob Bonta, he decided not to run. Then you had Eric Swalwell rise to somewhat to the top of the polls and his campaign suddenly collapsed. He faced sexual assault allegations. He left the campaign, resigned from Congress. His votes in a scenario few people saw coming basically moved in mass towards Javier Becerra. So you've had this really topsy turvy campaign to this point. And I think it's worth underscoring how difficult it is for politicians to become known in California. California is not a retail politics state. You need lots of money to be on the airwaves. And so this kind of chaos within the candidate field has made that even more challenging for any of these candidates to really grab the attention of voters. And also there just were so many of them. It took a scandal to winnow the field. And that also when you're in a top two primary, there are going to be two people that go to the runoff. They could be two Democrats or they could be two Republicans or they could be one of each. And that makes some of the thinking on the part of voters difficult because they're trying to figure out who should they vote for to make sure that guy ascends to the runoff. Yeah, I think Mar makes a great point too. For a lot of voters, I think the whole swallow scandal was kind of a wake up to, oh wait, we're having a governor's election this year. And I think it's in large part why you see early voting rates down among Democrats. Democrats are voting early at much lower rates than the last time we had a governor primary in 2022. We don't know exactly why that's the case, but I think the best guess is a lot of these Democratic voters are saying, I'm going to hold my ballot until the last possible moment. I'm not trying to see another 90-yard dash from these folks and really wanting all the time to assess those candidates before the June primary. In terms of major moments that kind of changed the trajectory of this race, you had Eric Swalwell drop out after getting embroiled in scandal and you had Steve Hilton, the Republican, get endorsed by President Trump. Before that, there had been something of a competitive race between Republicans. Yeah, that was huge. I mean, that was the single biggest endorsement so far in this campaign for the single reason that it consolidated Republicans behind Steve Hilton. And we've seen this movie before in California, the last open race for governor we had in 2018. It looked for a long time like there might be two Democrats in the general election, Gavin Newsom and former LA Mayor Antonio Viragosa. The Republican field was kind of muddled. Trump came in, he endorsed businessman John Cox. Cox made the top two general election. Similar situation here, Trump kind of playing kingmaker again. He endorses Steve Hilton, Steve Hilton consolidates the GOP vote and looks very likely to make it into the general election at this point. One of the other things that's interesting about this race is there wasn't a dominant candidate for a very long time and California usually produces some pretty giant political figures. Where are they? I think, as Guy said, many of them decided not to run in this Democratic primary. Many of the bigger, higher-profile people, you mean? Yes, many of the people who could have been thought of as the next in line didn't put their hands up or actively avoided this race. And it's so rare in California political history at the level of the governor to not have a next in line Democrat who is the obvious choice for the party's nominee. All right, let's get past the politics and talk a little bit about policy. Guy, what are the major issues shaping this race? What are these candidates talking about? Well, I will say for such a high-profile race, there's been relatively little policy discussion. I think for a long time, these candidates were duking it out to who could declare themselves the best Trump fighter. And then in large part with Basara and Steyer, it's questions about voter perceptions of their candidacy. Like, how solid is Basara's resume? Can Steyer be trusted as a progressive? There have been some concrete policy differences that have emerged in recent debates, one of which is around single-payer health care. Basara is now kind of opposed to single-payer. He was for it. Now he's kind of pulling back from that a little bit. Steyer, it has full-throated support for single-payer, but he also acknowledges, even as a supporter, it's going to take a long time for that to ever come to fruition in California, including needing the approval of the Trump administration, which does not seem likely. There's another difference that came out of debates that I think has immediate relevance, and that's around oil drilling. Steyer is opposed to new oil drilling. Basara said he'd support it in places like Kern County. And I bring that up because it's an issue our current Governor, Gavin Newsom, has kind of grappled with over the last couple of years as California goes to this energy transition. He did a lot to roll back ability to drill for oil. He's moved in the other direction more recently, and it's a really tough choice for, I think, the next Governor. There's parts of the state in the Central Valley around Bakersfield, where this is still a big opportunity for economic development, but it needs to be weighed against the immediate public health impacts for people who are actually living near where that drilling might happen. So that's a concrete difference between Basara and Steyer, and one we've seen them kind of duke it out on the debate stage over. And you're talking about oil and gas drilling. Affordability is this huge issue in national politics right now, and gas prices are at the core of that affordability discussion. The other day I said on air, like, oh, $4.50 gas is going to make voters unhappy, and a friend in California texted and said, oh, that is a dream. $4.50 gas. Yes, we're living with $6.00 and up gas right now in California. It's worth saying that if we've learned anything from this current war, drilling for oil does not necessarily translate into lower prices at the pump. We're in a world market on that. There's a lot of disagreement within the Democratic Party even in California in how far environmental regulation should go, what should be the balance between importing versus drilling locally in California. And I think it's one in which we've seen the progressive Steyer and the more traditional Democrat Basara disagree over. And also just fascinating that Tom Steyer, a billionaire who made his money in fossil fuels, at least partially, is now the progressive populist billionaire candidate. As I've gone out and just talked to voters over the last few weeks, there are so many Democrats that I've talked to who said, you know, I like everything Steyer is saying. I like his platform. I'm just not sure if I can vote for someone who's a billionaire after all the activism Democrats have put forward in the last year or so against billionaires. I think a lot of voters are grappling with exactly that. All right, we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back with more. And we're back and we've talked a lot on this podcast about the unclear future of the Democratic Party nationally. What does the party stand for? Who are its voters? California is obviously a very blue state. Do either of you have a sense of whether the results of this governor's race could answer any of the big existential questions that Democrats are facing nationally? Well, they could help figure this out for Democrats, but it's not as good a laboratory or a Petrie dish for this than a nice swing state in the middle of the country because California is so blue. But what's interesting is in many ways, California was a leader in a lot of policy areas. They adapted top two primaries, became the biggest state that had them. They've experimented with solutions to the housing problem. They've certainly on climate change, health care, and sometimes they experiment with the solutions on the right, like when Pete Wilson pushed through a pretty draconian immigration bill and actually caused a backlash that helped Democrats in California to this day. But also what you're not hearing in this race, but I do think you're going to start hearing it because Gavin Newsom has talked about it, is what is the answer that Democrats have to the coming AI jobs apocalypse? Now Gavin Newsom talks about something he calls UBC, universal basic capital instead of UBI, which is universal basic income, and also housing. Housing is a huge problem all over the country. It's too expensive. There's not enough of it. And California has taken some steps to make it more plentiful, but it doesn't sound like that's a big issue in this race. Yeah, I think that's spot on. And I think a lot of this, to me, the post-mortem of this race will depend on Steyer and whether he's able to make it out of this primary and really perceptions of his campaign. Like, will it be seen as somebody buying the election, a billionaire being able to come in, spend $200 million and buy himself the largest governorship in the country? Or will it be seen as, wow, someone running on a Bernie Sanders platform with the support of basically the entire Bernie Sanders network in California is able to win the governorship in the largest blue status? That's seen as a win for progressives nationally. There's different ways, I think, to look at a potential Steyer victory. And so it'll be interesting to see if he does make it into the general election, which of those narratives becomes predominant. Yeah, and Steyer billionaire populists are not new. We have one in the White House right now. He's on the right instead of the left. But what's interesting to me is, since Trump was elected, there's been a huge backlash against billionaires, and especially billionaires in California. So it'll be interesting to see where Steyer ends up and what the voters, what kind of verdict they render on him. And guys, since we talked about Trump's endorsement, I think we should at least mention the fact that someone like Gavin Newsom hasn't endorsed in this governor's race. The silence is glaring. Yeah, I mean, I do think in recent history incumbent governors in California have been hesitant to wade into the primary. Newsom has basically said he'd only get involved if it really looked like two Republicans were on the path to making it to the general election. He said that would be a break glass moment in which he'd insert himself. But yes, other than that, I think Newsom seems more interested in 2028 than on the 2026 primary. And you just mentioned something really interesting, which was the possibility, and it existed for a while, that two Republicans could emerge from this top two primary and box out the Democrat because there were so many Democrats and they were splitting the Democratic vote, which some people thought was a flaw in the top two primary system. But I'm wondering, Guy, if you think there is now a movement to get rid of the top two primary system, which at the very least guarantees that whoever wins the election has gotten over 50% of the vote, that's important. Nobody's going to squeak through in a fractured field with 28% of the vote because only two guys go to the runoff. Right. You don't have the Bill Clinton 1992 thing where you win the election with 47%. Yes, I do think there will be a conversation after this primary to get rid of the top two. I will caveat that with that conversation will largely be driven by people who never liked the top two primary to begin with. This was opposed by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, largely Sacramento insiders and officials never liked the idea of opening up a primary in this way. I think the brief moment in which Democratic voters feared there might be two Republicans that make it to the general election in California, that's largely been put to bed. I think with Steve Hilton consolidating the Republican vote, that doesn't seem likely at all, but maybe it started up enough fear among Democrats that they will renew this push to get rid of the top two primary in future years. Although I will say the top two primary also applies to local elections as well for Congress. There's a whole separate issue of should there be a Democrat and a Republican say in a general election in Oakland or San Francisco or Los Angeles or is the electorate more reflected by being able to pick Democrats of different shades? That's really reflective of the big political moment that we're in because top two primaries was a reform. The purpose of it was to give voters who were not on the extremes, right and left of each party sway. A top two primary empowers voters in the middle and California just got rid of at least temporarily another big reform where they led, which was non-partisan redistricting. If we're in a race to the bottom and we're going to have redistricting all the time and we're not going to have non-partisan drawing of districts and we're not going to have top two primaries, I think that could be considered by many progressive reform Democrats in California as a big step backwards. Okay, let's turn now to the mayor's race in Los Angeles. Guy, you are also covering that race, which is getting a lot of national attention. Why is that? I think for a few reasons. Second biggest city in the country, you have a somewhat well-known incumbent Karen Bass who has very low approval ratings, which is leading to candidates jumping in the field vying to replace her. I think the single biggest reason this race has gotten a lot of attention in the last few weeks has been the ascendancy to a certain extent of Spencer Pratt, who folks might remember as Heidi's boyfriend on the hills. He is now running for mayor. He lost his house in the Palisades fire and has run a campaign largely focused on Bass's fire response and recovery and looks to be in somewhat decent position of making it into the runoff against Bass in November. The system there for a local election is whoever wins, if any candidate gets a majority of the vote in June, they win the race. If not, the two highest finishing candidates go to a runoff in November. You mentioned the fire response. Is that the biggest issue in this race? What other issues are there? Obviously, a lot of people have not even begun to be able to start thinking about rebuilding from those fires. I think just in general public polling, we've seen issues like housing affordability, homelessness, the condition of the streets poll highly for LA residents and voters. My biggest question watching this from a distance, I'm up in the bay, is what's the saliency of the fire issue? Is it just contained to folks who are immediately suffered losses or in that area? LA is massive and most voters do not live in the Palisades. Are Bass's opponents able to make this more of an issue about her competency running the city versus the specific issue of fire safety and fire recovery? Somewhat surprisingly to me, I would have never predicted this four years ago, Bass wants to talk about homelessness. Homelessness has declined under her watch. She's much more comfortable talking about that in public safety. I think something to watch, especially if we do see Spencer Pratt edge out, Nitzia Raman, who's the other leading candidate. She's a city council member. If it's a Bass-Pratt runoff, what's the reach of the Palisade fire issue in this election? I think you need to explain why it's so remarkable that Bass would want to talk about homelessness. This has been just such a vexing problem for California leaders. Yeah, this has been a huge issue for mayors up and down the state, one in which there were very few examples of progress, honestly, in the last decade. The tide is starting to turn on that, and actually not just in Los Angeles. We've also seen San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, mayors in those cities have really turned toward a strategy of temporary housing. Bass's big program is called Inside Safe. She's restructured motel rooms and brought people indoors in that way. Yes, it's somewhat surprising that the mayor of LA running for reelection touting her work on homelessness, but that clearly is something Bass sees as somewhat of a victory of her first term. I do want to ask, Spencer Pratt is getting a ton of airtime on Fox News all the time, his ads. They're having panels discussing him all the time, but I don't know how many California voters or LA voters in particular are watching Fox News. Does he have a shot here? Good question. I would say it's hard to see the path for him in a runoff against Bass simply because of that. Yes, this is a nonpartisan mayoral election. The candidates are not running as Democrats or Republicans, but Spencer Pratt is a Republican, and the campaign that he's run and as you point out, the attention he's received has been very Republican coded to this point. What is his appeal to the vast majority of Angelino voters who are Democrats for them to not vote for Karen Bass? Karen Bass clearly wants to run against Pratt. I think she feels most comfortable in that kind of runoff. It's a very similar strategy that Bass pursued when she ran for election. In 2022, she faced Rick Caruso, a former Republican businessman in the general election, and really was able to turn one on paper as a nonpartisan election into a partisan election. I would expect her to pursue a similar strategy against Spencer Pratt in a potential runoff. All right, we're going to leave it there for today. Thanks, guys. Thanks so much. Before we go, there are primary runoff elections in Texas happening today, including the Senate race where President Trump finally endorsed, and he picked the challenger. We will have results from those races on tomorrow's pod. You don't want to miss it, so hit the follow button wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. And I'm Mara Eliasson, Senior National Political Correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Brazil used to have one of the fastest growing economies in the world. People called it the country of the future. Their songs, O Brasil, É o País do Futuro, because it seems like we have it all, man. But then the music stopped. On the Planet Money Podcast, a lot of countries these days aren't rich, they aren't poor, they're just kind of stuck in the middle. Why is that? Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
