The race to replace term-limited California Gov. Gavin Newsom has Democrats facing a scenario that would have been unthinkable a cycle ago: two Republicans could advance to the November general election, locking every Democrat out of the contest entirely.
Polling and redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who works at the voting data firm Political Data Inc., told the New York Post that Democratic alarm is well-founded. His blunt assessment: the party's crowded field could hand Republicans an opening that no amount of last-minute maneuvering can close.
"They have a valid reason to be freaked out."
That is Mitchell's read on the state of play. And the numbers from his own simulation tool back it up.
California uses a top-two primary system. Every candidate, regardless of party, runs in the June primary. The two highest vote-getters advance to November. In a normal year, that system favors Democrats in a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans.
This year is not normal. The Democratic side of the field is packed with big names splitting the vote: Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state controller Betty Yee, progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, and former Rep. Katie Porter, among others. On the Republican side, only two candidates carry real weight, former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Mitchell built an online tool at toptwoca.com that runs simulated elections based on polling data, campaign finance, and other factors. It currently gives roughly a 17% chance that both Republicans make the November runoff. That may sound modest, but Mitchell said Democrats need that number down to 2% or 3% before they can relax.
It isn't there. And it may not get there.
Mitchell's tool gives Hilton around a 73% chance of securing a top-two spot and Bianco a 40% chance. Those are strong individual odds. The combined probability of a two-Republican general election, while still a minority outcome, is far higher than anything Democrats have faced in modern California politics.
Separate polling confirms the trend. An Emerson poll showed Hilton leading the decided vote at 17.1%, with Swalwell at 14.1% and Bianco at 13.5%. Emerson noted that "Democratic voters have not yet clearly coalesced around one candidate," while the Republican electorate was essentially split between Hilton at 38% and Bianco at 37% among GOP voters, with Hilton also picking up a plurality of independents at 22%.
That same poll found Newsom's approval rating underwater, 44% approve, 45% disapprove, and 53% of respondents said they were considering leaving California because of the high cost of living. Those are not the conditions that produce enthusiastic Democratic turnout.
The broader pattern of Democratic infighting and vulnerable incumbents across the country only deepens the party's problem in California, where no single standard-bearer has emerged to consolidate the left.
The California Democratic Party has been urging lower-polling candidates like Villaraigosa and Yee to drop out and clear the lane for a front-runner. The problem, as Mitchell explained, is that withdrawal doesn't actually remove a candidate from the ballot under California law.
Mitchell put it plainly:
"They can't really drop out; they still would be on the ballot. And so they'll still get votes."
That is the structural trap. Even if a Democrat "suspends" a campaign, voters who don't follow the news closely, or who vote early, will still mark that name. Every stray vote for a marginal Democrat is a vote that doesn't go to Swalwell, Porter, or Steyer. And every fractured Democratic vote makes it easier for Hilton and Bianco to hold their positions.
A California Democratic Party-commissioned poll found Hilton at 16% and Bianco at 14%, ahead of all Democratic candidates, with Swalwell, Porter, and Steyer each stuck at 10%. That three-way Democratic tie at a lower number than either Republican illustrates the depth of the party's fragmentation.
The internal divisions plaguing Democrats nationally, from progressive figures openly threatening primary challenges against their own colleagues to factional disputes over policy direction, are playing out in concentrated form in the California governor's race.
Mitchell himself cautioned against treating the 17% figure as negligible. He invoked a comparison that should sting Democrats who remember 2016:
"The odds were in Hillary Clinton's favor."
The point is clear. Low-probability outcomes happen, especially when one side is complacent and the other is hungry. Mitchell also noted that organizations are potentially looking at changing their endorsements or redirecting their spending, the kind of late shifts that can reshape a primary in its final weeks.
"Those kind of things can have the impact of changing the outcome of the election."
The GOP side faces its own version of the vote-splitting problem. Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and his group Reform California have been urging Republican voters not to divide their support evenly between Hilton and Bianco. DeMaio's message is direct and data-driven:
"With a great risk of a shutout if Republicans split their votes, a choice must be made, one driven by data. Whichever Republican candidate for governor is leading when you cast your ballot should receive your vote."
Hilton, for his part, argued that he is the stronger candidate and urged consolidation behind him. He told the Post that the "Democratic machine" has been lining up behind Swalwell, and framed the race as a question of Republican discipline.
"The more likely situation is that you'll have two Democrats in the top two than two Republicans, and that's why we have to act now on our side to get behind the strongest Republican candidate, and that's me."
Mitchell's tool supports part of Hilton's case: it gives roughly an 82% chance that at least one Democrat makes the runoff. But that still leaves a meaningful window for a full Republican sweep, and a near-certainty that at least one Republican will be on the November ballot.
The Washington Examiner reported that while a Republican victory remains unlikely, the mechanics of the race have created "an unusually plausible opening" for GOP candidates. Political analyst David Mark described the situation as "still unlikely but increasingly plausible."
Mitchell also flagged a dimension that goes beyond the governor's mansion. If Republicans fail to land even one candidate on the November ballot, the consequences ripple downward. Without a top-of-ticket draw, Republican turnout in state legislative, congressional, and local races could collapse.
"There's no expectation Republicans are going to win statewide, but if they don't have somebody on a statewide ballot, then they can't have somebody to kind of rally troops to turn out the vote."
That calculation works both ways. Democrats who lose their governor's race slot don't just lose a mansion, they lose the turnout engine that powers their entire state ticket. And Republicans who secure even one spot gain a mobilization tool they haven't had in a California general election in years.
National Review's Jeffrey Blehar captured the broader shift in mood, noting that for conservatives, there had long been "little point in caring" about California politics, before suggesting that may be changing, with both Hilton and Bianco gaining visibility and momentum.
For anyone who doubts that California ballots have a life of their own, Mitchell pointed to the case of former state Sen. Leland Yee. In 2014, Yee withdrew his candidacy for secretary of state after the FBI arrested him on racketeering charges. He still came in third, with 380,361 votes.
If a candidate facing federal racketeering charges can pull nearly 400,000 votes after dropping out, the idea that a Democrat who "suspends" a gubernatorial campaign will simply vanish from the results is fantasy. The ballot doesn't care about press releases.
The same party that has struggled to maintain unity on high-profile House votes now faces a coordination problem in its own deepest-blue stronghold, and the clock is running.
The June primary will determine whether Democrats' worst-case scenario materializes. Mitchell's simulation gives them roughly an 82% chance of landing at least one candidate in the runoff. But 82% is not 100%, and the party's inability to clear the field means the risk persists.
Organizations may shift endorsements. Spending patterns may change. But the ballot is already set, and every Democrat who filed will still collect votes, whether they want them or not.
For Republicans, the strategic imperative is consolidation. DeMaio's message, vote for whichever Republican is leading when you cast your ballot, is the kind of pragmatic discipline that California's GOP has rarely managed. Whether rank-and-file voters follow that advice will determine if the party seizes an opportunity it hasn't had in a generation.
The broader spectacle of prominent Democratic strategists openly warring with their own party members only reinforces the picture of a coalition that cannot agree on who should lead, let alone how to govern.
California Democrats built a system designed to guarantee their dominance. Now that system's mechanics are working against them, and they have no one to blame but the crowd in the mirror.
