The Left has lost its mind. And now it’s obvious.
And a major Democratic candidate made a critical mistake right before the election.
Twelve Days Out, The Stakes Are Unforgiving
With California’s June 2 gubernatorial primary now twelve days away, Tom Steyer is closing his campaign the same way he has conducted it from the start: with an enormous checkbook and an unexpectedly uneven retail presence. The billionaire hedge fund founder has now spent more than $132 million of his own money on the race — making it by far the most expensive self-financed gubernatorial campaign in California history — and yet the polling picture remains uncomfortably tight. In the most recent SurveyUSA survey, Steyer was running at 18%, trailing Trump-backed Republican Steve Hilton at 20%.
The final stretch of a campaign is when voters pay the closest attention, and what they saw from Steyer in his closing argument to California voters was an awkward performance that reinforced the nagging doubts about his candidacy that money alone has been unable to resolve. The episode spread quickly through California political circles, generating derision from rivals and feeding a narrative the Steyer campaign has been fighting for months: that a man who made billions investing in fossil fuels and private prisons is not the most naturally fluent messenger for economic populism.
The gaffe itself was self-inflicted. Campaigning in Southern California — the region where his money has been most heavily concentrated on television advertising — Steyer conflated his policy message with his biography in a way that highlighted precisely the contradiction his opponents have been amplifying all spring. For a candidate who has spent months insisting he can bring change to a state he helped shape through decades of political spending, the stumble was a reminder that authenticity is the one thing you cannot buy.
The Contradiction That Won’t Go Away
Steyer has not been an unimpressive candidate. He has sharp policy knowledge, a clear climate message, and endorsements from labor unions and environmental groups that represent real voter infrastructure. His debate performances have generally been strong — he held his own against Katie Porter’s attacks on his wealth and past investments, and he presented his “change agent” pitch more effectively in a crowded field than most expected.
But the “awkward blunder” in his closing argument arrived at precisely the moment when competitive primary campaigns are typically tightening their message, not loosening it. The California primary’s top-two system means Steyer’s goal is simple: finish in the top two out of a field that includes Hilton, Becerra, Porter, Villaraigosa, Mahan, and others. A strong Hilton performance on the Republican side is essentially assured. The real fight is for the second spot, and four credible Democrats are competing for it.
Steyer’s campaign said it remains confident in its trajectory, pointing to ground game operations and advertising spending that dwarf the competition. They are not wrong about the resources. But resources have not closed the gap between Steyer’s funding and the widespread voter skepticism about a hedge fund billionaire pitching himself as the man who will hold corporations accountable. The only difference between now and where the race started is that the calendar has run out.
The Broader Race — And What June 2 Will Tell Us
The California governor’s race will produce genuinely useful information about the direction of both parties heading into November. On the Republican side, Hilton’s polling lead represents a meaningful test of whether Trump’s endorsement can produce a competitive result in California’s top-two primary — a state where Republicans have been shut out of statewide general elections for years.
On the Democratic side, the survivor of the Steyer-Becerra-Porter scrum will enter November facing a Hilton candidacy that is generating real enthusiasm in Southern California and among working-class Latinos who have been drifting from the Democratic Party. Whoever emerges will need to consolidate a Democratic coalition that is, to put it mildly, not unified behind any of the current candidates. Steyer’s closing argument stumble, whatever its specific contours, is a symptom of the underlying challenge: he has spent enough to win, but voters have consistently shown they are not yet persuaded he has earned it.
