The gubernatorial debates concluded without the one essential question being posed:
“In what specific ways does your strategy for resolving issues like housing, homelessness, affordability, and unemployment diverge from the methods employed by Governor Newsom?”
The challenges regarding housing, homelessness and affordability were present during Newsom’s 2018 and 2022 campaigns, yet they remain unresolved. California’s unemployment has worsened significantly during his tenure, climbing from the 13th highest in the nation in 2019 to the very highest today. Asking candidates to distinguish their plans from Newsom’s would have provided voters with much-needed clarity and context.
Because that question wasn’t asked, voters are forced to guess. Tom Steyer seems to be adopting a variation of Trump’s 2016 strategy of blaming China for everything, just substitute “corporations” for China. Xavier Becerra answered with word salads. Katie Porter seems focused on reducing the burdens of over-regulation, as do the GOP candidates. Matt Mahan (who I support) points to what he has done in San Jose, and Antonio Villaraigosa (who I have supported in the past) points to what he did in Los Angeles. However, the debate would have been far more enlightening had the candidates been forced to explicitly address the differences between their proposals and Governor Newsom’s existing record.
