Winners, losers of the CNN California gubernatorial debate

The leading candidates for California governor met on the debate stage Tuesday night for the third time in as many weeks.

The most recent episode was a two-hour session hosted and performed by CNN live from Monterey Park. The debate was the first time the candidates appeared before a national audience and came as mail-in ballots began arriving in homes across the state.

Columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria pored over all 120 minutes, soaking up every thrill, scripted or not, and dutifully observing every parry and move. Here’s what they took away:

-Arellano: Antonio Villaraigosa has finally overtaken his rivals for the governorship. Is it too late?

I wrote down my thoughts on this debate when writing my next article. column on one thing, but I stopped paying attention when issues in my jurisdiction like immigration and the failure of the Democratic Party came up for discussion. The rest of the time, what the candidates said unfolded as a giant shout-fest straight out of the studios of the late, great Wally George, with everyone staying true to form.

Chad Bianco was furious, Steve Hilton tried to mask his MAGA-ness with a British accent. Katie Porter scolded, Tom Steyer manipulated Bernie. Xavier Becerra did his best impression of his old Bunsen character on “The Muppet Show.” Matt Mahan was just there.

Do you know whose voice sounded better? Antonio Villaraigosa.

Anyone who really knows the former Los Angeles mayor has always viewed him as Chicano Prince Hal, who doesn’t take himself as seriously as he should. His disloyalty effectively killed his political career after his mayoral years; His consulting for the nutritional supplement company Herbalife has made Villaraigosa a walking joke among many Latinos I know.

He has spent the last decade eloquently embodying Marlon Brando’s famous quote in “On the Waterfront”: He could be a contender. Even the governor’s race, which was announced well ahead of most of his rivals’, had a mostly doomed feel to it — one of the reasons Villaraigosa received such low votes for most of the race and was excluded from most of the early debates.

But that sullen dog Villaraigosa was nowhere to be seen tonight.

His jokes were kept to a minimum. He mostly stayed within the time limits and didn’t interfere much. He criticized Hilton for her refusal to acknowledge that President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and his dismissal of undocumented immigrants.

Villaraigosa has been particularly harsh on forever foe Xavier Becerra, on everything from his time as President Biden’s health secretary to his former staffers being accused of stealing millions of dollars in campaign funds. (Becerra has not been charged with any crime.)

When CNN co-moderator Elex Michaelson asked Villaraigosa whether he would cancel California’s much-maligned high-speed rail project, the candidate’s emphatic “No” boomed like a Lebron James slam dunk. He called out the waste of the multibillion-dollar project, touted the revival of Los Angeles’ subway to the sea, and spoke with a passionate gravitas that Becerra could only dream of doing.

“When I make a mistake, I am responsible,” Villaraigosa said at the end of the debate. This seemed like a candidate who could win — and now he has a month to mount a comeback worthy of his political mentor, the late, great Gloria Molina.

Four weeks to prove him wrong, Antonio.

Barabak: It was a no-hitter.

There is no surprising breakthrough. There is no game-changing moment. No candidate was so irresistibly attractive as to tip the race akimbo and make his mark as the clear frontrunner in the slowly consolidating contest.

So far the candidates are plowing well.

To anyone who watched each of the debates – which may not have been many viewers – it was all very familiar.

What’s new, and what may be appealing to newcomers, is the sense that the race is finally taking cohesive shape with Xavier Becerra unexpectedly emerging as the candidate to beat.

A month ago, Eric Swalwell was a leading candidate in the sleepy contest and Becerra was an afterthought; He was being asked to resign for his own dignity and the good of the Democratic Party. (Democratic parties’ fear of not voting in the June 2 primaries has greatly diminished.)

When Swalwell dropped out of the race and vacated his congressional seat amid allegations of sexual assault and other unlawful misconduct, it was widely assumed that most of his support would shift to Steyer or Porter, the other two leading Democratic candidates.

But Becerra clearly took advantage of this, and his new status became clear Tuesday night as he faced repeated attacks. It wasn’t particularly dazzling, but that’s not its appeal. In a time of great turmoil and stress, his determination and composure emerged once again.

With less than four weeks until Election Day — and voting already underway — time is running out for another dramatic shakeup like the one that occurred between Swalwell’s collapse in April and Becerra’s rise in May. If another candidate were to make a move, Tuesday night’s debate was a great opportunity.

But it looks like little to nothing will change as a result, with Becerra steadily gaining ground, Hilton solidifying GOP support, and the rest of the field looking for something — or someone — to shake up the race in a big way once again.

Kabriya: I don’t know the winner, but the debate’s biggest loser was definitely: Bianco. The Riverside County sheriff, I suspect, didn’t try to hide who he really was — a conspiracy-loving, hard-line immigration leader with ties to an extremist group.

Bianco said he was, in a sense, a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right organization known for some of its members participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. He brushed aside election fraud theories and even suggested State’s Attorney. General Rob Bonta may also be involved. He made it clear that undocumented people are breaking the law by existing in the state.

Maybe some MAGA voters will stick with this nonsense, but I predict independents and more moderate Republicans will find Trump-backed Republican Hilton even more appealing after Bianco’s angry ramblings. Hilton may be sending a thank you note and a bottle of champagne to her opponent for this performance.

As for the winners, a few Democrats had their moments. Porter has spoken clearly and forcefully on issues like single-payer healthcare (which he supports) and resisting Trump’s immigration policies in this immigrant state.

But he also directly addressed criticism that he was mean-spirited in a way that I thought might bother him.

As her male competitors bickered back and forth and slapped each other, Porter said she was shocked that “everyone wanted to talk about my temperament”, given all the “yelling” and “disrespect” on stage. It’s a step back he tried earlier in the week with a new ad that tried to make the criticism a punchline.

I understand what she means, and I don’t think a male candidate would face as much scrutiny for yelling at a staff member, but at the same time, what’s more unattractive to voters than an angry woman? Someone who complains. That moment of resistance to the narrative may not turn out the way voters want it to.

I agree with Gustavo that Villaraigosa had a good night and Steyer has Bernie energy, which could be good.

Steyer was the liveliest and most direct he’s ever been in a debate, throwing a few punches and making points clearly (much less risky than he’s been in the past). He embraces his far-left politics and defines himself as the “creator of change”.

Steyer was behind Becerra in the polls, but Becerra still showed a steady, if less than exciting, showing. For jaded Democrats, Steyer may always look better.