So much for the all-out, high-stakes primary that was supposed to pit California’s most prominent Democrats for a chance to be the state’s next governor. Yet, they’ve one by one left the field.
Senator Diane Feinstein or Treasurer Bill Lockyer never even tried to create any buzz; Rep. Loretta Sanchez announced she’d run for re-election; Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi dropped out to enter CA-10’s special election (he should be elected to Congress this coming Tuesday); Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was widely expected to jump in, but he oped out shortly after winning a second term; and today, San Fransisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sent an e-mail to his supporters announcing his withdrawal.
And just like that, Jerry Brown is the last man standing. With still 8 months to go before the primary, he has gained full control of the Democratic nomination. If a new contender were to enter the race today, he’d be rather late fundraising and infrastructure building-wise; only Feinstein would be in a position to immediately endanger Brown.
Newsom’s letter presents his decision as a personal one (”with a young family and responsibilities at city hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort”), but there is no question that the primary reason he is withdrawing is Brown’s insurmountable strength. It’s not that Newsom thought the Attorney General would be easy to defeat; it would be foolish to think of a two term-governor in the 1970s, a former presidential candidate and a former Mayor of Oakland as anything but a formidable political force. But few expected Brown to be quite so dominating.
The man, after all, has his critics. Bill Clinton, with whom he shared very tense moments during the 1992 primaries, had endorsed Newsom, who was hoping to count from strong support (electorally but also financially) from the Bay Area. Also, should Brown’s longevity not play against him at some point? He has occupied so many posts, been at the center of state politics for so many decades that one would think he would see his support erode - especially in a state like California where the political class is largely discredited.
And yet, Brown has been in control of all polls that have been released, and Newsom has had to face not only widening margins (he trailed 47% to 27% in the latest Field poll) but also the realization that he faced a massive demographic challenge: Thanks to his Northern California connections, Brown was highly competitive in the Bay Area while crushing his rival in SoCal. Furthermore, Newsom was facing quite a stark fundraising gap, which was obviously a huge obstacle given California’s size and expensive markets.
Newsom was also plagued by weak general election numbers in some polls, which found him significantly underperforming compared to Brown. The perception of a clear electability gap was not helping him convince donors to contribute and elected officials to endorse him.
I doubt it’s a good thing for California that the state’s dominant party will select its nominee with little competition. Neither does it look like it should be the most exciting news for progressives: While there were no clear ideological fault lines between Brown and Newsom, The American Prospect’s must-read September story on Brown’s gubernatorial days and his responsibility in Prop 13’s passage and implementation highlighted the fact that there are questions surrounding his economic outlook that he should have to answer. Yet, Newsom’s withdrawal means Brown won’t have to offer many specifics for the struggling state, let alone be held accountable to its many liberal voters, until next summer.
As such, Newsom’s decision is quite good news for Brown. Not only because he is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, but also because this should help his general election prospects. The Attorney General gets to save millions of dollars he would have used in the lead-up to the primary, which should allow him to pummel whoever emerges of the GOP primary in June (while Whitman and Poizner can always self-fund, their 3-way race with DeVoreCampbell promises to be so brutal that it should burn up much of the resources they’re willing to invest).
Also, Brown will enter the general election with his reputation intact, whereas he would likely have taken some powerful hits in a primary against Newsom (especially if Clinton had gotten involved).
On the other hand, it would have been a good rehearsal for Brown to have to come up with specific prescriptions for California’s dire situation before having to face a Republican. Also, Brown should worry about fading out of the public view in the springtime. A race against Newsom would have allowed him to stay in the news (without facing much pressure given his advantages over the mayor) and get a wave of favorable stories once he vanquished his opponent; now, he’ll have to fight for media coverage while Whitman, Poizner and DeVoreCampbell monopolize the airwaves in the lead-up to their June primary.


Taniel - with respect I disagree that it is bad for California for Brown to have been anointed by now. People had a choice months ago whether to challenge him. One person did and there has been a campaign. The opinion polls clearly showed a significant margin favored Brown. That is democracy. California voters can always vote for the Republican candidate if they do not like Brown.
I completely agree that Brown is strengthen by this since he can not only save move now but will probably fundraise better since he is the de facto nominee and probable Governor. I disagree that him being out of the media early next year is a bad thing. He is well known and will have plenty of cash - he will not go quietly away for those months.
FYI to all, DeVore (the 3rd Republican candidate mentioned) is actually running in the Senate race. Tom Campbell is actually the 3rd Republican Governor candidate. You are right about Poizer and Whitman in terms of self funding. Poizner is worth about a billion dollars and has been pumping money into GOP causes the last few years to get his conversative credit up since he ran as a moderate when he ran for State Assembly and lost before running for Insurance Commissioner and won…he was the only other Republican besides Arnie to win statewide in 2006. Meg is worth multiple billions and has already put $19 million of her own money into the race.
Let them spend their fortunes. Brown is invincible; there’s no way getting around that. Campbell is the only candidate that could make the race remotely interesting. And money can buy you insurance commissioner over an unpopular LG, but not Governor over the second-most powerful person in the state (and a popular one at that).
An interesting note: When Garimendi is elected next Tuesday, all three major contenders for 2006 LG will be in Congress: him, McClintock and Speier. If only Garimendi was succeeding Calvert, though…
Brown is invincible?
Yah, God knows a 71 year old former Governor who hasn’t stopped running for office since he was 30 is the definition of hope and change!
Cliff - that may be true but it does change the current view that Brown is the strong favorite to become the next Governor. That is why Newsom who has a career ahead of him dropped out now - he is ambitious and would have stayed in if he thought he could win.
Taniel - I am sure you will blog on this soon but I see Scozzafava has dropped out of NY23. This means the hard core Conservative wing of the GOP has won (regardless if they actually hold NY23 on Tuesday) by forcing out the more moderate Republican.
Amazing stuff.
As a resident of Ca. I have been watching this race somewhat closely. I would have voted for Newson in the primary, but now that he is out Brown will be the Democratic nominee. He will also be the next govenor. Despite his merits, or lack of them he is a name and a known commodity. After all the turmoil and mess we have had I think older voters will harken back to the “golden days” and younger voters don’t know who he is except that he had this job before. Poizner or Whitman? Oh, please!
I don’t disagree that Brown is the odds-on-favorite, but invincible? That’s just stupidity. He’s got gigantic vulnerabilities that any opponent, Democrat or Republican, can exploit.
I didn’t say he was invincible, just said he will win.