The California Primary: A Tale of Money, Party Loyalty, and Political Survival
California’s recent primary election has once again proven to be a fascinating microcosm of American politics. But beyond the headlines, what does this election really tell us about the state’s political landscape? Personally, I think it’s a story of three things: the limits of wealth, the enduring power of party loyalty, and the surprising resilience of the political establishment. Let’s dive in.
Money Can’t Buy Elections—But It Can Buy Lessons
One thing that immediately stands out is the staggering amount of money poured into these campaigns, particularly by self-funded candidates. Tom Steyer, for instance, spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on his gubernatorial bid. Yet, as of now, he’s barely clinging to a viable third place. What many people don’t realize is that money in politics isn’t just about buying ads—it’s about building a connection with voters. Steyer’s campaign, despite its financial muscle, failed to resonate on a personal level.
This raises a deeper question: Why do self-funded candidates so often struggle? In my opinion, it’s because voters are wary of candidates who seem to be buying their way into office. Garry South, a seasoned California strategist, put it perfectly: these candidates ‘wear out their welcome.’ It’s not just Steyer—look at Patrick Wolff, Yvonne Yiu, and Saikat Chakrabarti, all of whom invested heavily in their campaigns only to fall short. What this really suggests is that authenticity and grassroots support still matter more than a fat wallet.
The ‘Normie’ Democrat Strikes Back
California’s primary was also a victory for what I’ll call the ‘normie Democrat’—experienced, establishment-friendly candidates who voters see as reliable. Xavier Becerra, the Democratic frontrunner for governor, is a prime example. He’s not a firebrand or a populist; he’s a seasoned politico with a deep resume and minimal baggage. What makes this particularly fascinating is how Becerra’s rise contrasts with the national trend of anti-incumbent populism.
From my perspective, California voters aren’t looking for revolution—they’re looking for stability. They want someone who can ‘fight Donald Trump,’ as Claremont McKenna professor Andrew Sinclair noted. Becerra fits that mold perfectly. His success, alongside other incumbents like Mike Thompson and Brad Sherman, underscores a broader point: in a deeply blue state like California, being a standard-issue Democrat is still a winning strategy.
Party Loyalty Still Reigns Supreme
California’s top-two primary system was supposed to break the partisan mold, encouraging candidates to appeal to the middle. Yet, once again, the general election is shaping up to be a blue-vs.-red showdown. What’s particularly interesting here is how this system, despite its intentions, has reinforced party loyalty rather than weakened it.
If you take a step back and think about it, the top-two system hasn’t produced a single governor’s race with two Democrats or two Republicans. Instead, it’s consistently funneled the most energized partisan voters into the general election. This year, Becerra and Steve Hilton are likely to face off, proving that party identity still dominates. A detail that I find especially interesting is how Democrats, despite their initial fears of a ‘shut out,’ managed to consolidate behind their strongest candidates. It’s a testament to the party’s organizational prowess—and its voters’ discipline.
The Shutout That Never Was
Speaking of Democratic anxiety, the fear of a Republican shutout in the governor’s race was palpable. With so many Democrats in the running, there was a real concern that Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco could claim the top two spots. But here’s the thing: that fear was always overblown. California Democrats have a history of dodging these electoral bullets, from the 2018 congressional races to the Newsom recall.
What this really suggests is that Democrats are far more strategic than they’re often given credit for. Whether it’s party leaders urging candidates to drop out or voters themselves coalescing around the strongest contenders, the party has a knack for self-preservation. Personally, I think this is one of the most underrated aspects of California politics: the ability to avoid self-inflicted wounds, even in the face of seemingly chaotic primaries.
The Limits of Political Star Power
Finally, let’s talk about the state legislators who thought their Capitol credentials would translate into higher office. Anthony Rendon, Anna Caballero, and Jasmeet Bains all learned the hard way that name recognition isn’t enough. Rendon, a former Assembly speaker, is languishing in fourth place for superintendent of public instruction. Caballero, a former appropriations chair, is a distant third in the treasurer’s race.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how it contrasts with the success of candidates like Scott Wiener and Aisha Wahab, who easily claimed top spots in their congressional races. The difference? Wiener and Wahab ran in districts where their legislative records resonated with voters. Rendon and Caballero, on the other hand, seemed to assume their titles would carry them—a miscalculation that highlights the limits of political star power.
The Bigger Picture
If there’s one takeaway from California’s primary, it’s this: politics is still fundamentally about people, not just platforms or pocketbooks. Money can amplify a message, but it can’t replace genuine connection. Party loyalty may seem outdated, but it’s a powerful force in mobilizing voters. And even in an era of anti-establishment sentiment, experience and reliability still have their place.
As we look ahead to November, I’ll be watching to see how these dynamics play out. Will Becerra’s steady hand appeal to a broader electorate? Can Hilton make inroads in a state that’s increasingly Democratic? And what lessons will future candidates take from this election? One thing’s for sure: California’s political landscape remains as complex and compelling as ever.
