Max Guo & Patrick Li — April 14, 2026
For months, Democrats in California fretted about the possibility of a two-Republican governor’s runoff; just one look at the recent Governor’s debate stage explains why. In a crowded field of nearly a dozen candidates, nearly all were Democrats. In California’s open primary system, which awards the top two finishers (regardless of party) a spot in the runoff, a fractured Democratic Party seemed likely to hand the two Republican candidates control of both spots in the runoff.
Yet on April 5, President Trump, out of all people, put California Democrats out of their misery with his endorsement of Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host and MAGA acolyte who once served as an advisor to British PM David Cameron. Rather than sticking to the strategy of locking the fractured Democratic field out of the runoff, Mr. Hilton began throwing jabs at his Republican counterpart, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, accusing him of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only) for kneeling with BLM protestors in 2020. Already, many Republicans who had aligned with Bianco are switching allegiances, hailing the president’s endorsement. Betting markets no longer consider a dual Republican runoff a likely outcome. And, as in previous election cycles in the deeply blue Golden State, when a Democrat and a Republican reach the runoff, the Democrat is almost certain to win.
So which Democrat is most likely to emerge victorious? For months, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell seemed to be leading the pack. Many described the Congressman as a second coming of incumbent governor Gavin Newsom, combining his anti-Trump record (he was one of the prosecutors in Trump’s second impeachment) with a message on affordability (his website emphasized that he would put “affordability over red tape”) while avoiding the most progressive policy proposals of the Democratic base (he has notably opposed an effort to impose a 5% tax on billionaire’s assets, a law which Mr. Newsom promised to veto). However, a series of sexual assault allegations seems poised to utterly derail his campaign. Without Newsom 2.0, voters’ decision now comes down not to whether they want change, but in which direction they want change to occur.
The leading Democrats, as they now stand, are billionaire-turned-climate-activist Tom Steyer and former Senatorial candidate Katie Porter. Tom Steyer, a former 2020 presidential candidate, has spent more than $112 million of his own money on his campaign and is promising Californians a “Progressive for Governor.” In his political advertisements, he portrays himself as a billionaire who walked away from the ivory tower to fight for green energy, for free student meals, and against corporate influence in government. Steyer built his campaign on investing in homebuilding by taxing the wealthy, cutting energy costs by boosting competition within California’s energy monopolies and reducing the power of PACs. He has also taken a firm stance against ICE, arguing that the agency should be “abolished,” while simultaneously supporting a universal health care scheme that provides for all California residents, regardless of immigration status. This latter policy, backed also by Mrs. Porter, would mark a clear break from the policies enacted by Newsom, who has aimed to remove undocumented immigrants from Medicaid. With Swalwell recently suspending his campaign, Steyer is the one betting markets believe is most likely to win the November gubernatorial.
While Katie Porter’s campaign in many ways looks similar to that of Steyer’s, her progressive credentials stand on shakier ground. Earlier in the race, Porter promised to work more closely with business groups, called a universal health care scheme “unfeasible” and stated that raising the minimum wage was “not the solution to affordability.” But as Swalwell and Steyer pulled ahead, Porter recast herself as a progressive bulwark, promising to fight for universal health care, raise the minimum wage and implement an “overpaid CEO tax.” While this leftward swing has rallied some progressives around her campaign, it has cost her support from many of her wealthy donors and opened her up to attacks that she isn’t truly committed to her progressive proposals. “Her timing on this stuff just looks suspicious to me,” noted one Democratic consultant in the state.
This is not to say that the next California governor is bound to be a progressive. With Swalwell’s campaign imploding, many of his more moderate supporters may flock to candidates who have thus far been trailing in the polls. Former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan have argued that their state’s high energy prices stem from the state’s overly harsh regulatory and taxation framework on the oil and natural gas industries. Villaraigosa has promised to cut regulations on oil refinement, while Mahan has suggested that he would suspend the statewide “gas tax” to allow energy prices to stabilize at a lower rate. In addition, Mayor Mahan has condemned both parties for their handling of immigration, arguing that teachers’ unions were forcing the state government to raise teachers’ payments without demonstrating improved learning results. That is why he has promised to make homelessness and crime the focus of his governorship. While both candidates are polling in the single digits, the two months remaining until the general election give both candidates a chance to gather support from moderate voters unswayed by the Steyer and Porter campaigns.
It is commonly said that wherever California goes, so goes the country. In 2025, NYC elected progressive bulwark Zohran Mamdani, while Virginia and New Jersey both opted for establishment Democrats. California’s gubernatorial race could be a critical indicator as to which wing of the party wields greater influence.
About 30% of Californians say they don’t know who they are voting for. Part of the voters’ indecisiveness stems from Newsom’s ubiquity. Newsom himself reckons that last year’s redistricting campaign in response to Texas’s gerrymandering fiasco deprived the race of attention. After more than eight years, Californians are ready to move on. The question that remains is: to whom?
Read more here:
Extemp Question: Who is best placed to win the 2026 gubernatorial race in California?
Extemp Analysis by Max Guo
Personally, for this question, my answer would be Tom Steyer.
The intro of this speech will do a lot of work. It will have to emphasize why I will not be considering Republican candidates in my analysis, and why the Democratic candidate who makes the runoff is most likely to clinch the governorship. I would also remind the judge that the current Democratic leader, Eric Swalwell, will not be considered because his campaign will likely collapse within a few days.
I would format my speech as follows: why Steyer is best placed to win over Democratic voters on three key issues.
- Green energy
- Universal health care
- Immigration
On each of these, I would compare Steyer with another candidate, and show why he is more popular on the issue.
- Green energy:
I would focus on how, while his progressive opponents have made similar promises to invest in green energy, Steyer has a proven record of actually putting his own money into green energy projects. For that reason, his proposals to reduce energy prices through green energy investments have teeth.
- Universal health care
I would first discuss the popularity of a universal health care scheme among California Democrats. Then, I would compare Steyer’s pledge with that of Porter’s, and note that Steyer can easily attack Porter over her “flip-flopping” on the issue in the past.
- Immigration
First, I would emphasize the popular sentiment among Democrats opposing ICE deployments within the state. Next, I would contrast Steyer’s approach with that of a candidate like Mahan’s, arguing that Steyer is better placed compared to his moderate rivals on this issue that riles up voters.
This speech structure is far from perfect. It does more work on proving why Steyer’s progressive credentials are stronger than his rivals, while not doing enough to show why immigration would matter to Democrats who do not belong to the progressive wing of the party. In short, an astute judge may discover that the speech discusses little of how Steyer could secure victory if more moderate Democrats consolidate behind a rival candidate.
