MUSK’S ‘AMERICA PARTY’ GOING NOWHERE

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“MUSK’S ‘AMERICA PARTY’ GOING NOWHERE”

 

It’s no wonder President Trump last summer laughed off entrepreneur Elon Musk’s attempt to start a new third political party as revenge for Trump persisting in pushing his “big, beautiful bill,” which promises to increase the national debt by at least $3 trillion.

 

Since the Progressive (Bull Moose) party was founded by ex-President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 after William Howard Taft snatched that year’s Republican presidential nomination away from him, six other “third” parties have started up, none enjoying much success.

 

There were the Dixiecrats in 1948, founded by South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, managing to carry four states and 39 electoral votes before disappearing.

 

The American Independence Party of George Wallace did a little better in 1968, carrying five states and 46 electoral votes before disbanding nationally, even though a California affiliate remains as a minor party.

 

Businessman Ross Perot’s Reform Party won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, but took no electoral votes and gradually died out over the next few years.

 

The Green, Constitution and Forward parties have since done little better.

 

But Musk polled on his X (formerly Twitter) social media service and among 5.6 million supposed voters, reported there was 80.4 percent support for a new party.

 

Yet, political parties founded on revenge generally don’t do well, as the Bull Moose, Thurmond and Wallace efforts demonstrate. Make no mistake, Musk’s putative America Party bid (he’s still allegedly considering it) is based on revenge. Not only for his lost best-buddy status with Trump, but also because Trump’s bill eliminated virtually all federal tax credits for buyers of both new and used electric vehicles. Without those subsidies, no one knows how low sales of EVs like Musk’s Teslas might eventually drop.

 

Musk was very open about his threat to start a new party if Trump’s signature bill passed. “If this insane spending bill passes, the American Party will be formed the next day,” the California entrepreneur fulminated. Didn't happen.

 

Despite its name, Musk didn’t envision a sweeping national party to begin with. Rather, he said it would focus at first on two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 congressional districts, out of the 35 that Democrats now say they will concentrate on next year. The idea would be to create a new force in Congress that could control the balance of power there for at least two years.

 

If Musk really plans to spend a substantial part of his billions of dollars on this political project, he might as well just light a match to the money, for all the headway it’s likely to make.

 

Even Perot’s Reform Party, with its almost 20 percent share of national votes, never came close to electing a senator or representative.

 

Musk argues the U.S. government has become a “uniparty” controlled by Democrats and Republicans he says are complicit in unfettered spending and virtually unlimited, constantly rising debt ceilings.’

 

So far, the Musk effort looks rather inept. Experts say many early America Party filings submitted to the Federal Elections Commission appeared inauthentic, and Musk even admitted one filing in New York was fake.

 

Nor has Musk set a budget, although some analysts say the effort he outlined could cost $1 billion and take about 10 years to organize effectively.

 

That would be about four times what Musk spent in his well-documented and successful 2024 effort to target swing states which figured to have narrow election outcomes in order to assure Trump’s election.

 

But funding the America Party would be very different from kicking hundreds of millions into a Trump campaign, as Musk did last year. His effort won Trump’s gratitude and a license for Musk to make job cuts throughout the federal government while gaining access to previously confidential information.

 

But then Musk began to differ with Trump on a few issues, and their friendship cooled, as Musk’s loyalty to Trump was no longer absolute.

 

Meanwhile, Musk has no formal party structure, no platform and no realistic candidates for any of the yet-unnamed seats he covets.

 

All of which means it is rapidly becoming too late for Musk’s latest effort to accomplish much, no matter how much he might invest in it.

 

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

IF CALIFORNIA GETS A GOP GUV, DEMOS CAN BLAME CANDIDATE EGOS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“IF CALIFORNIA GETS A GOP GUV, DEMOS CAN BLAME CANDIDATE EGOS”

 

By Election Day next November, political party registration in California will be about 40 percent Democratic, 24 percent Republican and 35 percent Independent or decline to state.

 

That’s close to where political preferences in this state have stayed pretty steadily since the late 1900s, when a tide of Latino voters became Democrats because Republicans led by then-Gov. Pete Wilson supported the 1994 Proposition 187, which threatened to deprive undocumented immigrants of public schooling, most medical care and other services. Much of the measure was later thrown out by the courts.

 

But not before Latinos had a strong scare, with some attacked at gas stations and many longtime residents feeling they had better become U.S. citizens, which 2.5 million of them actually did by 1999.

 

They turned California from a purple state where folks from either major party had a chance to reach public office into a solidly blue Democratic one where no Republican beside muscleman actor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been elected statewide in about 20 years.

 

So why are Republicans hopeful one of their two significant candidates for governor might get elected this year? It’s because of unjustifiably large Democratic egos.

 

Under this state’s Top Two “jungle primary” system, the first two finishers in any primary election reach the runoff election, regardless of party affiliations.

 

Right now, so many Democrats are running for governor that they could splinter their party’s June primary vote and leave two well-funded Republicans in the race – Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton – as the top two vote-getters and opposing each other next November.

 

The Democratic field includes former Los Angeles Mayor

Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee,

state schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former state

Assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. Plus former

Orange County Congresswoman Katie Porter, current East

Bay Congressman Eric Swalwell, onetime California

Attorney General Xavier Becerra and billionaire 

environmentalist Tom Steyer, whose “Stick It to Trump”

TV commercials during last fall’s special election over

Proposition 50 were one reason for the redistricting

measure’s easy passage.

 

Democrats have never seen such a large field, and the 

splintering of party voters was visible in polls that found 

Porter recently running second behind Bianco with 11

percent of voters favoring her. Bianco was barely one

percent up on her, but many analysts guess most GOP

voters have not yet caught on to what they might

accomplish next year if they solidify behind one or two

candidates.

 

There’s one reason so many Democrats are now running: ego. Does anyone but Thurmond think he has a chance at the runoff? Does anyone think Yee can make it? Or Calderon, a termed-out state Assembly officer largely unknown outside his old Los Angeles County district?

 

Steyer has the money to make himself a major presence. Villaraigosa also could raise significant funds, as might Becerra, Porter and Swalwell. Even if all the other Democrats drop out before early spring, that would still leave five with at least some financial credibility splitting the party vote. It’s a recipe for Democratic disaster unmatched since Schwarzenegger ousted ex-Gov. Gray Davis in a 2003 recall election.

 

Some of these Democrats must reassess their own potential viability, which their egos appear to have inflated. Porter’s videoed outbursts against a questioning journalist and her own staff ought to eliminate her, even if all they've done so far is reduce her poll margin over other Democrats by about two points.

 

Becerra, Health secretary under ex-President Biden after leaving Sacramento, has been hurt by his failure to supervise his dormant campaign fund, which the FBI says was therefore raided by several Sacramento consultants, including Becerra’s onetime chief of staff, a 20-year loyalist.

 

If he couldn’t keep track of his own campaign money, how can Becerra expect to supervise California’s huge budget?

 

Get those two out, along with Yee, Calderon, Thurmond and Swalwell, and the threat to Democratic rule all but disappears. Leave them in and it’s devil take the hindmost.

 

If these supposedly dedicated Democrats really care about their party’s continued control of California and its ability to assert priorities like abortion on demand and gun control, it’s high time some of them left the field.

 

   -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

LARA SEEKS TO FULFILL INSURANCE COMPANY WISHES

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“LARA SEEKS TO FULFILL INSURANCE COMPANY WISHES”

 

As he prepares for his last year in office, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is going all out to make it easier for insurance companies to fulfill their wishes, doing their bidding as he usually has during seven years as the state’s insurance boss.

 

He's now under investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission for accepting help with campaign expenses and travel gifts including a trip to Bermuda.

 

Far more damaging to customers, he allowed the cancellation of thousands of homeowner policies, forcing most of the rejected into the state’s last-chance Fair Plan, much more expensive than regular insurance.

 

Now he proposes to make himself the sole arbiter of how much insurance companies can charge for property and vehicle coverage. He wants to change rules letting consumer groups scrutinize and challenge rate increases sought by companies like State Farm, Allstate and many others.

 

The rules for challenges are set by the 1988 Proposition 103, which also made the insurance commissioner an elected official with a two-term limit. Lara’s tenure began in early 2019, so he must depart the office just after Jan. 1, 2027.

 

Meanwhile, he filed a draft resolution allowing himself to deny payments to groups that fight proposed insurance rate increases. Thirty-six public interest non-profits quickly urged him to withdraw that plan.

 

Lara essentially wants to defy Prop. 103, the state’s main insurance law, which requires the companies to pay consumer representatives (known as “intervenors”) legal fees and to compensate experts who testify in rate cases.

 

Lara seeks to circumvent that law by vetoing consumer groups’ payments if he finds their advocacy is “vexacious.” “duplicative,” “oppositional” or “irrelevant,” plus a few other adjectives.

 

Mainly, this is an effort to squelch or silence Consumer Watchdog, the group whose founder Harvey Rosenfield authored Prop. 103. That non-profit is the preeminent intervenor in insurance rate proceedings, saving consumers more than $6 billion in rates (compared to charges in other states) since passage of Prop. 103.

 

Lara and the insurance industry claim Consumer Watchdog and other such groups harm the California housing market by delaying rate hikes.

 

This makes no sense when you consider that the higher insurance rates go, the higher project costs will rise.

 

Meanwhile, national parent companies of California’s largest insurers, like State Farm and Allstate, refuse to tap much of their gigantic cash reserves to help their branches here pay claims from wildfires and other disasters.

 

For one example, State Farm’s parent, based in Illinois, had about $145 billion on hand in 2024, but reportedly contributed less than $2 billion for payouts to policyholders after last January’s Los Angeles County firestorms.

 

Apologists for Lara and the companies claim delayed insurance rate hikes impede new housing. They assert that when intervenors question rate increases, the time doubles for approval of new and higher rates.

 

Wrote one pro-insurance industry lobbyist, “when insurance costs balloon…, project costs don’t pencil out.”

 

That’s true, but it’s not the fault of consumer groups, which keep rates down as much as they can for as long as they can. State Farm, for example, right now is charging California customers $749 million annually for an “emergency” rate increase granted by Lara after the company months ago asked for $1.2 billion.

 

Only resistance from Consumer Watchdog delays part of State Farm’s request and other, similar, ones. Without it, the rates asked by the companies likely would have slid through without their having to justify any of their additional premiums.

 

It is plain illogical to argue – as lobbyists often do – that lower insurance rates raise project costs.

 

Critics of intervenors like Consumer Watchdog also complain the group has collected $14 million in fees since 2013 – which Consumer Watchdog says came to about 25 cents for every $100 it has saved insurance customers.

 

Meanwhile, Lara promised in 2018 not to take any campaign money from insurance companies. Later, he admitted taking such donations and refunded $83,000.

 

Here's something to look for in 2027 and 2028, long after the issue of intervenor payments is resolved: Will Lara end up as an insurance company official and how much might he be paid? That’s a legitimate question in a state where several past presidents of the Public Utilities Commission later became top executives of companies they once regulated.

 

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

WHO’S REALLY FIGHTING ANTI-SEMITISM, AND WHO’S JUST USING IT POLITICALLY

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“WHO’S REALLY FIGHTING ANTI-SEMITISM, AND WHO’S JUST USING IT POLITICALLY”

 

Anti-Semitism has been a plague on college campuses for more than a decade, never more visibly than in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas surprise attack that killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians and saw some 250 more abducted as hostages.

 

Protests erupted immediately on campuses across America after that massacre. But not against the attackers. Rather, against the attacked. Why? Without doubt, the protests were planned in advance, and they succeeded largely because the victims were Jews. They capitalized on a deep vein of anti-Jewish feeling that’s grown up in America.

 

Now President Trump accuses dozens of American universities of anti-Semitism, attempting to extract large sums of money from them in return for continuing to operate as usual. He’s trying to impose conditions on universities in order for their faculties to continue getting the federal grant money that has facilitated inventions from the Internet to cures for formerly unstoppable diseases.

 

How did the outpouring of anti-Semitism arise in a country where polls only a few years ago showed both strong support for the Jewish state of Israel and rated Jews among the finest marriage partners for people of most ethnic derivations?

 

Arguably, at least some of the new feelings stem from “critical race theory” (CRT) taught in many colleges and some high schools. A “discipline” of victimization, CRT portrays Jews as helping perpetuate prejudice against Blacks and also as participants in “white privilege,” through which Jews have supposedly gained financial well-being denied to other minorities.

 

The spreaders of CRT ignore the fact Jews have been persecuted longer than any racial or religious group, dating back to the days of slavery in Egypt commemorated in observances of Passover.

 

CRT insinuated into the education schools and departments of many universities, its proponents becoming dominant in shaping the curriculum of California’s first few plans for an ethnic studies course to be required for high school graduation. Among its leaders are top officials of the California Faculty Assn., including Melina Abdullah, professor of Pan American Studies at Cal State Los Angeles and Rabab Abdulhadi, founding director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas program at San Francisco State College.

 

Ethnic studies curriculum drafts they helped produce were never fully accepted by the state Legislature, but similar ones were bought and adopted by several school districts after being rewritten slightly by CRT advocates.

 

Early drafts of the statewide curriculum were never taught widely because the Legislature refused funding, and funding was a necessity under the law that set up the ethnic studies requirement.

 

Now the money will flow, primarily because the curriculum has been completely rewritten and approved by the Legislature via a bill called AB 715, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed this fall over the objections of virtually every significant Arab-American group in California.

 

They claimed the rewritten curriculum “sets a dangerous precedent of censorship” because, for one example, it demands fact-based, two-sided discussion of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and its history. Previous versions, and some curricula adopted by individual districts, put all blame on Israel, which was invaded by armies from seven Arab countries within moments of declaring independence.

 

Although it was watered down somewhat, the new statewide blueprint will train teachers, administrators and local school boards in spotting, preventing and responding to anti-Semitism, which has caused bullying of Jewish schoolchildren from Berkeley to the Etiwanda school district in San Bernardino County.

 

Districts will also be required to investigate complaints of anti-Semitism and “be factually accurate” and “consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility, rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship.”

 

The Arab-American groups contended that will “silence discussion,” when it really is an attempt at fair discussions in classrooms.

 

By signing AB 715, Newsom actively fought the anti-Semitism that’s been rampant in California schools for years, if not decades, and fueled the campus protests.

 

Meanwhile, Trump’s attempts to extort billions of dollars from universities that did not act quickly to quell bigoted demonstrations on their campuses do nothing to change future behavior.

 

So who is really fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry here, the president who touts himself as a leader against intolerance or the governor who with little fanfare signed a bill that has some chance of at least reducing the world’s oldest prejudice?

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

PROP. 50 LIKELY TO STAY INTACT NO MATTER THE FATE OF TEXAS GERRYMANDER

 CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

 “PROP. 50 LIKELY TO STAY INTACT NO MATTER THE FATE OF TEXAS GERRYMANDER"

 

If anyone needed proof of how swiftly political change can arrive, this fall is probably Example A.

 

Just observe the last month. First, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was riding high after passage of Proposition 50 and its changes in California congressional district lines made him the most successful national Democrat in countering a key initiative by President Trump.

 

Barely a week later, Newsom’s former chief of staff was indicted on charges of political corruption and tax fraud and many began to write him off as a presidential candidate because of it.

 

Not even a week after that, Newsom was back in the catbird seat after a federal appeals court in Texas threw out that state’s gerrymandered congressional district plan – which earlier provided the motive for the Newsom-sponsored Prop. 50. The U.S. Supreme Court days later temporarily reinstated the gerrymandered Texas lines.

 

It now appears the Texas decision nixing the changes there may be reversed by the high court, even though it was written by a Trump-appointed judge. Meanwhile the California proposition figures to survive its own court challenges, filed by the state Republican Party and the U.S. Justice Department.

 

That’s because Texas officials from Gov. Greg Abbott down were  open about their effort to concentrate Houston-area blacks into one district while giving five others to white Republicans. By contrast, there was little or no mention of race by either side in the Prop. 50 campaign, which was very explicitly motivated by pure politics.

 

Newsom created Prop. 50 specifically to counter the Texas gerrymander, which unlike California’s changes in district lines, was not adopted by a vote of the people. No race issue ever arose here until Republicans claimed after Prop. 50’s resounding win that was what motivated it.

 

Nothing says the U.S. Supreme Court has to give a final OK to either the Texas court decision or Prop. 50, but if it eventually tosses both gerrymanders, Newsom would still achieve his political goal of offsetting the Texas changes put in motion by a phone call from Trump to Abbott. If both efforts are eventually nixed, Newsom’s goal of regaining the prior balance after the Texas action would still have been reached.

 

Said one election law professor the day of the Texas decision, “There are not many grounds for a legal challenge against Prop. 50 to succeed.”

 

There remains a possibility that both Prop. 50 and the Texas court decision tossing that state’s gerrymander will stand up in the Supreme Court. If that happens, Newsom would have achieved far more than his goal of balancing the Texas gerrymander with an exchange of five new California Democratic seats for five new Texas GOP ones. In that case, Newsom would have given Democrats a net gain of five seats in the House of Representatives.

 

If something like that couldn’t put Newsom in an early lead in the 2028 Democratic presidential sweepstakes, it’s hard to see what could. A net gain of five seats would likely give Democrats control of the House, where almost all new Trump initiatives might then die.

 

No wonder Newsom gloating after the Texas court decision came down. In a post on X, he said, “Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned, and democracy won.” For a moment.

 

But even if Newsom proves correct, and the high court eventually says it’s OK to gerrymander at midterm for political reasons, but not racial ones, he will still be a long way from winning the next Democratic nomination.

 

For Newsom took a turn toward the center in his bill signings this fall, favoring business in many of his decisions.

 

His fall efforts were clearly designed to stamp him as a moderate, but also an environmentalist with a tight financial fist.

 

This could leave him open to a challenge from the left by someone like New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has built a career around leading her party’s far-left wing.

 

That possibility gained credence from the New York mayoral win of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani and the subsequent upset win by fellow Democratic Socialist Katie Wilson and a slate of similarly-oriented candidates in Seattle. 

 

The bottom line: Newsom may be riding high today, but in a season of very speedy change, no one can know how long that will last.

  

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

ARRESTS OF AIDES COULD ALTER TWO MAJOR CALIFORNIA RACES

 CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“ARRESTS OF AIDES COULD ALTER TWO MAJOR CALIFORNIA RACES”

 

Before this month’s arrests of former top state aides, it was a foregone conclusion that at least one or two Democrats would have to drop out of the ongoing run for California governor just to ensure there will be no Republican-on-Republican runoff next November 3.

 

But the dropouts until now did not figure to include Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general and Health secretary in the cabinet of ex-President Joe Biden.

 

His onetime top aide, Sean McCluskie, is charged with sending fake bills to a dormant Becerra campaign bank account, along with Dana Williamson, a former top assistant to current Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Govs. Jerry Brown and Gray Davis.

 

Becerra was not implicated in trying to extract funds from his inactive campaign account, which can possibly be used in the future for his political purposes. But his lack of acumen as a judge of the aide’s character might weaken him sufficiently to drive him out of the current race.

 

It is the latest example of this fall’s epidemic of candidate self-destruction, following early Democratic leader and former Orange County Congresswoman Katie Porter’s mishandling of a television interview and Republican Steve Hilton’s sending out a press release criticizing Newsom for actions that had earlier been proven sound.

 

Becerra was tied for third at 8 percent in recent polling on the race, even with Hilton and just three points behind Porter’s 11 percent as the early leader among Democrats.

 

Newsom could be accused of similar poor judgment of character. His former top aide Dana Williamson was also indicted for falsely billing the inactive Becerra account and for claiming business expense tax writeoffs for an expensive vacation, a private airplane flight and even the purchase of a $10,000 luxury purse.

 

Newsom, in Brazil for a climate change conference when the arrests came, cautioned against assuming the former top state aides are guilty of anything, even though investigations into them began during the Biden administration.

 

His office issued a statement saying “The governor expects all public servants to uphold the highest standards of integrity. At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law…”

 

The former aides pleaded not guilty.

 

Newsom first learned Williamson, then his chief of staff, was under investigation in November of last year, and immediately relieved her of her duties. Newsom is not implicated in any wrongdoing and has not allowed the affair to interfere either with his duties as governor or his nascent 2028 presidential campaign.

 

Becerra said he has cooperated fully with federal officials in the investigation of former chief of staff McCluskie and lobbyist Greg Campbell. He is also not implicated in any wrongdoing or misuse of the campaign account, which dates from his years as state attorney general.

 

The entire episode combines with the self-destructive behavior of other candidates to emphasize the instability of today’s run for governor and the early days of the next presidential campaign.

 

No one knows if any other federal investigations might similarly affect current candidates for governor, including the current poll leader, Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee, state schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former state Assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. 

 

If Becerra were to drop out, chances are his largely Latino base of support would fall to Villaraigosa, the only other Hispanic in the race.

 

That would give Villaraigosa, usually a pragmatist during his two terms as mayor and his time as state Assembly speaker, a major leg up on others left in the race and likely avoid Republicans taking the two leading slots in the state’s non-partisan Top Two primary next June.

 

But the arrests leave a lot unknown and much to be learned once the former leading state aides head to trial. No one knows for sure right now, but whatever information emerges could also help shape the development of both the gubernatorial and presidential campaigns.

 

 

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

 

“WHAT PADILLA’S OPT-OUT MEANS IN THE RUN FOR GOVERNOR”

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“WHAT PADILLA’S OPT-OUT MEANS IN THE RUN FOR GOVERNOR”

 

By next year, it will have been 28 years since California has had a race for governor as wide-open as what has begun to happen here.

 

It didn’t have to be that way. Had he chosen to run, the unbeaten, unscarred and un-scandaled Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla could have taken over the race like a giant over a gaggle of pygmies.

 

Every election since 1998 has had a similar look to that, with clear favorites from the start, from Gray Davis to Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jerry Brown to Gavin Newsom.

 

Without Padilla, this year’s race has no clear-cut favorite – yet.

 

Had he entered the race, every poll showed he would have been the instant leader, by a wide margin. He could have politically dwarfed the rest of the field, which now includes (among Democrats) former Orange County Congresswoman Katie Porter, former state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee, state schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former state Assembly majority leader Ian Calderon. There are a few others, but none has made a dent in the polls, currently led by Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco with about 13 percent voter support and Porter with slightly less backing than that.

 

Almost all Bianco’s support comes from Republican voters, which means he would not have much chance against the primary’s leading Democrat, whoever that turns out to be. Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, who led one poll for awhile, also has almost exclusively Republican support.

 

Dropouts so far include former state Senate president Toni Atkins and current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, both Democrats, and former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who left before ever formally entering the race. There will be more, unless Democrats want to enable their nightmare, a GOP-on-GOP race caused by extreme splintering like today’s among the field of ideologically similar Democrats, leaving the top two Republicans alone in the November runoff.

 

Perhaps all these folks thought Padilla would run. But he said it’s more important to him to remain in Washington and “focus on countering President Trump’s agenda in Congress. I choose to stay in this fight because the Constitution is worth fighting for. Our fundamental rights are worth fighting for.”

 

Padilla could have assured those battles would be carried on anyway by whoever he appointed to replace him in the Senate, had he become governor.

 

Padilla was a fairly low-profile senator from 2020, when he was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to replace Harris, a senator before she became vice president. But while national guardsmen and federal troops patrolled parts of Los Angeles in early June, he entered a Homeland Security press conference by Secretary Kristi Noem and attempted to ask a question.

 

Padilla was thrown to the floor and handcuffed before being released a short time later. His profile and name recognition quickly skyrocketed.

 

Now he says "There's a lot of important work to do (in California), whether it’s economic opportunity, the future of health care, future of the education system and on and on and on.” He will let someone else do all that work.

 

Padilla said he had to “think through where I can be most impactful. Is it from here, or from there?” Clearly, his answer was there, where he now is.

 

But there is no doubt Padilla could have had more impact as governor than as senator. Newsom has shown this, with his opposition to many Trump Administration actions and threats playing a far larger role in today’s political world than any Democratic senator’s.

 

Other senators have realized the same thing before. Before he ran for governor in 1990, for example, ex-Gov. Pete Wilson, then a Republican senator, remarked there are 100 senators but only one governor of California.

 

 

Had Padilla gotten in, there likely would have been a much greater exodus from this race than we have so far seen. There is no one now in the race to match his stature.

 

Perhaps a new entrant will appear (actor George Clooney?), or perhaps one of the remaining candidates will emerge as a stronger candidate than anyone now appears to be. For now, the possibilities appear almost endless and unprecedented in the modern era.

 

30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

Suggested pull-out quote: “There are 100 senators but only one governor of California.”