Wednesday night marked the first, and likely only, California governor’s debate between Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, and it was a brutal showing for Becerra. 

While Hilton focused on policy and argued that Becerra represents an extension of the failures that have come to define California governance, Becerra struggled to defend his own record. Instead, he repeatedly tried to turn the race into a referendum on Donald Trump, who, inconveniently for Becerra, is not running for governor of California. 

Hilton, meanwhile, had little to lose, and everything to gain. He used the debate to contrast his agenda with the status quo and offer voters a clear picture of what California could look like under new leadership.

As for the debate’s standout moments, here are a few: 

Right out of the gate, Hilton thanked CNN for dragging Becerra out of hiding, as the Democrat has largely abandoned anything close to a serious campaign across the Golden State. After all, in California simply having a “D” next to one’s name is often treated as sufficient campaign strategy.

Recommended
Why the Dem-Friendly Polls May Be Way Wrong Kurt Schlichter Abdul El-Sayed's Fundraiser Had a Very Interesting Take on the Thwarted FlyDubai Terror Attack Amy Curtis

Just minutes later, Becerra gave Californians a preview of what life under his governorship might look like, describing people earning less than $150,000 a year as “wealthy,” in a state where a family of four needs to earn roughly $276,000 to $303,000 per year to live comfortably.

Hilton repeatedly pressed Becerra to answer for his record as California attorney general and secretary of Health and Human Services under former President Joe Biden. At one point, Hilton accused Becerra of directly enabling, or at least turning a blind eye to, the trafficking of thousands of children under an unrestricted illegal immigration policy. He further said that hundreds of thousands of children remain unaccounted for today.

In another moment, Hilton asked Becerra to explain exactly how he planned to tackle the affordability crisis, particularly when it came to housing. A major message of Hilton’s campaign has been that Becerra represents more of the same, and Hilton questioned how Becerra could “double the rate of homebuilding” while still maintaining the state government’s status quo of heavy and unnecessary regulation.

Now, although Becerra had a great deal to answer for, Hilton did as well, at least in the eyes of California Democrats, and much of that centered on Hilton’s agreement with President Trump. 

Becerra repeatedly sought to tie Hilton to Trump’s policies, pressing him on the administration’s immigration agenda and ICE crackdown, his proposed tax cuts, and even Trump’s approach to AI. Across each issue, Becerra accused Hilton of simply importing Trump’s policies into California, an attack that may not move a national audience, but carries far more weight in a state where association with Trump remains a major political liability.

To a national audience, Hilton may have emerged as the clear winner, driving the debate back to California’s affordability crisis, regulatory burden, and Becerra’s record. But for many California voters, Becerra’s effort to cast Hilton as a Trump-aligned Republican may have been the more politically effective message. 

That divide helps explain why Becerra remains firmly ahead in the polls, although Hilton has shown in some surveys that he can bring the contest within single digits.