California Update: The Golden State’s Black-and-Blue Election

>> Jonathan Movroydis: It's Wednesday, November 20, 2024, and you are listening to Matters of Policy and Politics. At Hoover Institution podcast devoted to governance and the balance of power here in America around the free world. I'm Jonathan Movroydis, senior product manager at the Hoover Institution, and I'm sitting in the chair of Bill Whalen, the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Distinguished Policy Fellow in Journalism.

So that he can answer questions and provide commentary about California policy and politics in which he's well versed. Bill Whalen, in addition to being a Washington Post columnist, writes weekly for Hoover's California on your Mind Web channel. Whalen is joined today by Lee Ohanian, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow and professor of economics and director of the Edinger Family Program.

And macroeconomic research at the University of California, Los Angeles. Ohanian also writes weekly about the policy environment for the Golden State, for California on your Mind. A good day gentlemen, let's talk about the latest developments in policy and politics in the Golden State. At the top of the ticket in the presidential election, Kamala Harris won all of California's 54 electoral votes as expected.

Congressman Adam Schiff also won the US Senate seat, which Dianne Feinstein held until our passing last year. Both received a little under 60% of the vote, but the top of the ticket didn't help progressives down ticket. Proposition 36 passed resoundingly by 70% of voters, allowing for felony charges for certain drugs and thefts under $950.

Proposition five failed, allowing for 55% of the local electorate rather than two thirds, to approve bond and local property taxes for affordable housing, supportive housing, public infrastructure. And it was recently reported that proposition 32 was rejected by a narrow margin, 32 would have boosted the minimum wage to $18 per hour.

Of the five house races up for grabs in Orange county in the Central Valley, it appears that two, by a razor thin margin, will go to the democrats at this point. Lee in your most recent California on your Mind column, California residents did vote indeed differently in this election.

You write that the results demonstrated, quote, voter frustrations about quality of life issues within the state and increasing voter skepticism about the state's political leadership. Lee the question is, will leaders in Sacramento be responsive to their electorate?

>> Lee Ohanian: Jonathan, there was a substantial shift within California in our election, it was not surprising, of course, that Harris defeated Trump.

But what I found surprising is that I believe in almost every county, the amount of vote that went to Trump this time increased relative to 2020. And in particular, what was striking was the voting patterns of Hispanic voters. So do you put some perspective on how much that demographic changed in terms of how they voted?

In 2020, the vote for Biden versus Trump was about 80, 20 Biden over Trump, this time it looks it was closer to 55, 45. Harris over Trump with nine counties, including the large counties of Fresno, San Bernardino and Merced counties, which are all Hispanic majority counties, all flipped to Trump.

So there were some substantial changes and it really does highlight, California is becoming just increasingly frustrated with the problems that have been plaguing us for a number of years. Homelessness, crime, drug abuse, budgets that are incredibly generous, but that just are not delivering the services and goods from the public sector that people are expecting.

And despite these changes that virtually everyone in the political sphere is talking about, including those on the left, political leaders within the state, I think are not listening. So for example, governor Gavin Newsom immediately called for a special legislative session for next month to discuss how to Trump proof California.

And interestingly, he didn't have to call for a special session in December, he could have just addressed that in January. But by calling for a special session, he got an awful lot of media coverage, including a New York Times article which paints him as the leader of the resistance.

So politically I think he is gonna try to ride that, but this is not responding to constituent concerns. It's elevating Newsom's national prominence, which had taken a nosedive following Harris replacing Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket. So Californians are speaking, but I don't see the state's political leadership really listening it, at least so far.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah, I would have answered that in one word, no, it hasn't really changed Sacramento because it's a very insular place, and Lee's absolutely right. The governor's decision to not only call a special session, but then also hop on a plane and go to Washington. And meet with Biden administration officials, meet with California's congressional delegation and so forth.

There is a thing called zoom, he didn't have to travel across the country, but that is about raising his profile. As Lee mentioned, because as it's not just Gavin Newsom, it's JB Pritzker in Illinois, it's other governors around the country, all of whom wanna be seen as the head of this so called resistance.

Also, Kamala Harris has to decide she wants to play in the world of resistance, but I wanna look at the election a different way and I wanna look at simply from mathematics. And we're still counting votes here, incredibly, sadly in California we have until the first week of December to certify the vote.

So it's still limping along, there's still some races to be called, the last I checked, the estimate of turnout in this election is about 16 million votes. That's about 1.6 million fewer votes than in 2020 for Joe Biden, and this is hugely important in this regard. Lee mentioned proposition 32, which would have raised the minimum wage in California from $16 an hour to $18 an hour.

It was rejected, the first time in state history that a minimum wage increase has been rejected in a statewide vote. I checked the numbers before we came on the air, it's trailing right now by about 250,000 votes. Now if you consider that if this were 2020 and there are 1.6 million votes out there and California is about a two to one Democratic to Republican state in terms of party registration.

Let's assume that that 1.6 million votes breaks about 1 million for Democrats and about half a million for Republican slash conservatives. That's a 500,000 vote boost for Democrats, prop 32 is gonna pass. And so I think when you look at some of these ballot measures that were defeated and part of it was because the turnout was not what it was.

And this to me is one of the great mysteries of this election that we need to figure out moving forward. You had a historic election in California, Kamala Harris seeking to be the third California to be elected president, seeking to be the first woman, the first woman of color to be elected president.

California should have turned out, but they didn't in the same numbers as 2020, and Lee Jonathan might be as simple as this. The lead measure on the ballot, the one that kind of was the drove the tailwind was Prop 36, the anti crime measure. It was pushing close to 70%, it's about 68, 69%, that is rarefied air and initiat.

And this caused huge problems for Democrats in terms of being divided, but I think it just kinda cast a pall over the electorate, Lee Jonathan. In terms of just California's mood, we've seen in polls for years that people think that California is on the wrong track. But Prop 36, Lee was really kind of the embodiment of wrong track California.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, Prop 36 is really interesting, Democrats, including Governor Newsom, including those in the Legislative assembly and the state Senate tried very very hard to block this. And my theory as to why they want to block it, including the fact that I think just politically, many do not want to increase the penalties for crime under $950 is that, it's go increase the prison rolls.

And it's incredibly expensive to incarcerate someone in California, annually costs about $133,000 per inmate. And that's going to put enormous pressure on the state budget, if a lot more people are convicted, and what people were so upset about with the original Prop 47, it goes back, I think about 10 years now.

Bill was that 2014?

>> Bill Whalen: It's 2014.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, I believe Harris was attorney general at that time, and Prop 47 didn't decriminalize retail theft, but it made it a misdemeanor, for theft under $950. And we go to a city San Francisco, retail theft is substantial. Now you have drugstores, pharmacies, closing up shop, particularly in high crime low income areas, which puts enormous burdens on individuals living.

They're particularly elderly people who have a hard time getting around if they can't get their prescription at CVS a block away, then becomes difficult for them to find that. So that was, I believe that Prop 47 was called the Safe Schools and Neighborhoods Act.

>> Bill Whalen: Right.

>> Lee Ohanian: So by Harris, so it was an ingenious marketing, I think it passed with almost 60% approval 10 years ago.

>> Bill Whalen: And she did not endorse it, she took a pass on it just like she took a pass on 36.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yes, this time around in 2024, she did not take a stand on Prop 36 despite the fact that she named the ballot proposition 9 year before, that this one was going to largely reverse.

And Bill, as you know that passed, I think it's about 68 or 69% ahead right now. It is shocking that the most technologically advanced state in the most technologically advanced country we count votes like we did 100 years ago, but it's gonna, pass overwhelmingly. And the Democrats tried twice to introduce their own legislation to addresses ballot initiative and bill, I'll read just for a moment an editorial from the typically very progressive.

From the typically very progressive San Francisco Chronicle, about the Democrat strategy and trying to block the Proposition 36, which raises to felony charges for those who commit that theft. But on the other hand, it drops the charges if those people complete a drug treatment program, so it's very reasonable from that standpoint.

And I think that's one of the reasons why it's passing with such a large margin, so this from the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this year. Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders really don't want California voters to approve a November ballot measure which is Prop 36. In fact, they're so desperate to prevent the measure from succeeding, they're willing subvert and twist the very process they claim to revere more than anything else democracy to achieve their aims.

That's from the San Francisco Chronicle, so that just shows the enormous divide between the state's political leadership and what voters are thinking about. And Bill, when you noted voter turnout, I was also struck by voter turnout in California. And some who argue against voter ID talk about how voter ID suppress voting.

Well, I went ahead and I looked at voter turnout comparing California to some states that have the require photo voter ID. Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, and turnout was remarkably higher in those states compared to California, which has no voter ID whatsoever. And Bill, it's interesting the it wasn't just those propositions, but voters were very frustrated about crime in terms of voting out La Da George Gascon and also Alameda County Prosecutor Pamela Price.

And I believe that vote was maybe 20 to 30 percentage points in both.

>> Bill Whalen: She was taken out about a two to one march and she finally conceded the other day. But Lee it's also the mayor of Oakland who was recalled and then back in San Francisco, London Breed, who supported Proposition 36 which put her at odds with Newsom in the legislature.

She was also run out of office and she was defeated in exchange, the new mayor has no political experience. He's not a product of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, he's not part of the machine that produced London Breed and Gavin Newsom. So voters are really taking a departure and I think that's maybe just a reminder legislature you would like to think, especially look at Oakland.

Which is just a sad story just no matter how you cut it about government management, that really lawmakers have to do a better job in California. And that to me is the big question moving forward in 2025. Has Newsom, have lawmakers really learned any lesson here?

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, and again, when you think about the division, I mean just the large gap between where voters are and where Governor Newsom and the super majority in the state legislature are.

This is a state with roughly 24% registered Republicans. Newsom's approval in an October poll was only 44%, which is to me that's not that shocking in perhaps the bluest state in the country. And when you compare that to approval ratings of governors in all other states, there's a lot that have approval ratings over 60%.

There's very few that have approval ratings anywhere close to Newsom. And the state legislature has an approval rating of 42%. So yeah, Bill, your one word answer of no, political leaders are not listening to constituents and we'll see what happens as we go forward in terms of how much that's going to hurt them.

Because Californians are getting very frustrated about a lot of items that are essentially public policy failures. The political leadership seems to be doubling down on what they've done in the past and, it doesn't seem to be working, at least as far as I can see.

>> Bill Whalen: We should note, by the way, Californians also voted in classic kinda gas break fashion.

They voted for a couple of bond measures that slap on about another $20 billion in debt, actually, it's something like $32 billion in debt when you factor the interest. At the same time, they voted down a measure of Proposition 5 which would have reduced the threshold data to pass local bonds.

But Lee, I want to close out before we move the next segment, I want to close out the question going back to Proposition 32, this minimum wage law that got defeated. Do you think that maybe one of the factors here in its defeat was all the conversation we've had in California, all that you've written about the fast food minimum wage law?

>> Lee Ohanian: I suspect so, because what we know about the fast food minimum wage law, which singles out the fast food industry to pay a $20 an hour minimum wage, compared to $16 minimum wage in all other industries within the state. What we saw when that law took effect on April 1, is that prices for fast food within California immediately jumped.

They jumped between 7 to 10%. So voters are feeling that and I think they understand that the higher the minimum wage, those costs get passed on to them. And a lot of Californians are struggling mightily when it comes to financial issues. So yes, I do believe that that was a factor.

And Bill, I'll just emphasize the importance of Proposition 5 being declined by voters. Because as you and I've talked about before, the legislature has been trying for decades to get their hands around and open up the Pandora's box of Proposition 13. Which was passed in 1978, which freezes property taxes.

They've been trying every way, every way to try to get to try to open that up. And Proposition 5 was a way to do that. I was worried that the way it was marketed would lead to passage. And the way it was marketed is that lower the supermajority from 67% to 55% for building infrastructure and affordable housing.

So typically, those are buzzwords that in the past voters have been very positively disposed to, not this time, I believe it didn't come close, what was it? Is it about 57, 43 right now? Yep.

>> Jonathan Movroydis: Gentlemen, staying on the election post-mortem, Kamala Harris apparently is a leading contender to be the Golden State's next governor.

According to a poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 33 33% of respondents say they are likely to Support her and 13% are somewhat likely. Sure, she has some name ID and money advantages, but does she really want to be weighed down by pesky local issues like affordable housing, homelessness, and wildfires?

Would she would she be up for the job, Bill?

>> Bill Whalen: Welcome to my world because not a day has gone by since the election where I've not had a reporter call and ask about this question, what the future holds for her. Now we're looking at the governor's race based in part on the poll you just mentioned, Jonathan.

It might be very tempting for her because it's actually, I think, pretty easy in this regard. She would jump into the race far more name recognition, ability to raise a lot of money in a hurry and she would just scatter the field. You there are about a half a dozen Democrats looking at this right now of various prominence, but not really in the same league as her.

So she would force many, if not most of them out of the race almost automatically. If she got into a one on one race with the Democrat in November, thanks to the open primary, she would probably win that just based on her being Kamala Harris. If she ran against Republican, enough said she'd win that race.

So it's there for the taking, but you really raised the key question, Jonathan. Would she want this job? And also, Lee, is she really right for this job? I have worked for a California governor. I would argue that it is the second most difficult job in American politics because something is happening in California almost every day.

Some of it is man made, you have a very messy, complicated bureaucracy doing its best to complicate life for you politically. You you have a legislature, 120 people who think they're the governor and you have to deal with them on a daily basis. And then mother nature is always throwing curveballs at us.

Witness the fact that we're doing this on the same day that a so called bomb cyclone is coming California's way, which means the governor has to have his or act together when it comes to emergency services. It's not a job for the faint of heart. It's also not a job for somebody who is not really much of a manager as Kamala Harris, as we've seen, and also somebody who doesn't really have very deep policy chops.

So why would she do it? I guess political rehabilitation, I thought that maybe it would get her toward the presidency. Look at the calendar right now, if the Democratic race for 2028 is not underway already, it soon will be. And it'll be in full bloom in the summer of 2026 when 2028 aspirants are running around supposedly helping other gubernatorial candidates, but in fact, setting themselves up for a run.

She would be running for governor at the same time. She would have to then turn around literally to her inaugural address and say, thank you very much, I'm now off to Iowa. That's just not gonna work. So to me, if she became governor of California in 2027, she'd have to wait until 2032, at which this a Democrat in the White House, maybe she is an unpopular governor by then.

I just don't see it as really kind of making sense for her. And I frankly don't think it's a good fit for her. And I think it would just be terrible if she were the governor of California. I just don't think she's the right fit for it, guys.

>> Lee Ohanian: Bill, I agree with your points, the timing is very problematic for her. I agree that she could walk into the job given the state's political composition and given her name recognition. And she received what, 58% of the vote against Trump any Democrat would. But when you look at the other contenders for the job, Villa Ragosa has been out of the spotlight for a long time.

Bonta is not a household name, Eleni Kunalakis is lieutenant governor. But she's, in my opinion, has been frozen out of most of the policy issues by Newsom. Tony Thurman is state school superintendent, not a household name. So, yeah, I agree, I think she would just walk right in even if she did face a Democrat in tthe election.

>> Bill Whalen: I'm looking at the IGS poll numbers right now among Democratic voters. Katie Porter, you might remember she's the Orange County congresswoman who ran and lost in the Senate primary. She leads the pack with 22%. Kunalakis, Antonio Villa Rosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles, Javier Becerra, currently the federal HHS secretary, former state attorney general.

They're all hovering around 10 to 11%. That's what I mean, when F Kamala came in, she'd be like a cannonball in the pool. She would just create a wave, and the wave would force a lot of those lesser Democrats out. So again, it's there for the taking. But, you know, Lee, you mentioned 58%.

Most politicians would kill for 58%, but that actually is a little underwhelming. As far as California goes. When you look at what Hillary pulled against Trump in 2016 and Biden, she was about four or five points weaker than them. So again, it's the mystery of this election why Californians were not jazzed about Kamala Harris.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, and Bill, I think it boils down to the fact that despite she was California's, one of California's senators and she was state attorney general. It's hard to look at her resume and point to a lot of really concrete accomplishments from the standpoint of what obvious, positive outcome she own that people can point to and say, hey, this is a great thing Kamala did.

And I think polls were done about this while she was running for president. No one really could come up with much. So no, she doesn't have the track record. I don't think she's particularly well suited to this incredibly complicated and complex job that's involved with governor. You and I have talked a lot about being somewhat critical of Newsom's performance, including the fact that he doesn't seem to keep his eye on his day job very often.

But it is an incredibly difficult job to do. It's much more difficult when Schwarzenegger did it, a lot more difficult than when Pete Wilson did it. And whoever does it is gonna be having to deal with a mess. One third of the state is living in or near poverty, homelessness continues to grow.

The state budget is under remarkable pressure, we still haven't invested in water conveyance or water storage. Our highways and roads and bridges are among some of the worst in the country. Just go down, our schools perform awfully, public schools K through 12. Illegal immigration, I mean, you name a policy area and most likely California is gonna be having a difficult time with that.

So it really is a bit of a thankless job. So I don't know at some level what her end game would be if she took the governorship, because as you noted, the timing is very awkward. She was stepping into the Governor's Mansion and then almost immediately say, hey, guess what, I'm running for president again.

If she went two terms, then she would, what, I believe probably 67 if she decided to run for president again, which, today that's not old, obviously, as a president, but who knows what happens ten years from now. So I suspect that it's not a great fit for her in a lot of ways.

I suspect she understands that. I'm thinking she's gonna write that book and make up a lot of money from that. And then what she and Mr. Emhoff decide to do after, that's hard to say, but I just don't know what purpose it would really serve for her, how much of the benefit it would deliver.

I would think that if she really wants to be president, then the time to try would be this coming would be 28. But my God, it would be really difficult to do that if she was running, if she was a brand new California governor.

>> Bill Whalen: Okay, then let's spend a minute now, let's talk about Gavin Newsom.

Because whereas the timing for her would be complicated, the timing for him is almost ideal now. Because as you mentioned, he is term limited come 2026, which means he can leave office in January 2027 and just campaign to his heart's delight up and down America. But my question, Lee and Jonathan, is Gavin Newsom the cure for what ails the Democratic Party right now in terms of both substance and style?

And it's the style I'm looking at the moment. Peggy Noonan wrote a very smart column in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend in which she, as a million other pundits have done, have tried to analyze and break down what happened to the Democrats on Election Day. And she said, one of the problems is in addition to voters just not really enjoying being talked down to in kind of a condescending way, especially by celebrities.

It's the approach just as kind of relentless coming at you and the relentless talk about democracy hanging in the midst and just people tired and burned out of politics in general. And here you have a governor who literally the day after the election, wants to do a special session, hops on a plane and goes to Washington.

It's just kinda pounding the tom toms, there's no break here, there's no respite. And so I just don't know, Lee, if Newsom's style is the right fit for the Democrats moving forward. I'm not saying this in a Bill Clinton centrist way, but just, it just might be too much to take.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, Bill, I asked myself, what if it had been Newsom rather than Harris running this time around? Obviously, a huge hypothetical. But I can't imagine any of those swing states, they would have gone for Newsom, because she backtracked on a lot of policy areas. She tacked towards the middle.

I don't see him doing that, and yet she still lost in every one of those swing states. Bill, you look at median household income in a place like swing states such as Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, any of those swing states, Michigan, it's about $65,000 annually. These are not particularly wealthy people.

Median net worth under $150,000, they've got some equity in their home, modest retirement savings. They are not looking for a president who is gonna be more focused on raising their energy prices in and castigating them for potentially conservative social political views. They're looking for a president who's gonna make their life a little bit easier.

And I just don't see that, I don't see them responding favorably to Governor Newsom.

>> Bill Whalen: So once again, get back to the style side of things. His style would have been much different from hers. Whereas, she was very averse to doing media interviews, did not do the Joe Rogan podcast, was not really able to think on her feet.

He would have been the polar opposite, he would have done Joe Rogan. He would have gone on to Fox News, he would not have said no to any media request. I think he would have just been a complete media hawk in that regard. But here's the problem, and now we get into the substance side of things.

One of the most effective ads run against her was the ad showing her running for president in 2019 and bragging about how California was doing transitional work with prisoners. And this led to the Trump ad, she's for they, them and Trump's for you. You take her out of the race and put Gavin Newsom in there.

And Gavin Newsoms have to explain how he signed a law which forbids schools from telling parents that their children have changed their gender identity. Again, just a big problem out in America with this issue. But then you go from swing state to swing state across America. I think the Trump campaign would have very cleverly put California on display, would have gone to Michigan and made Gavin Newsom the king of electric vehicles, he wants to destroy combustion engines.

Would have gone to Nevada and talked about gasoline prices, would have gone to Arizona and talked about California sanctuary policies. And whereas Kamala Harris was kinda quasi-attached to California in that regard, not being the Governor, the Governor owns the state. And so I think that just would have been a giant millstone around him, and he would not have succeeded.

So easy to say that a more articulate politician might have done a better job than her. No, at the end of the day, he still has the same policy problems that she does. And this is the challenge of the Democrats moving forward. Are they gonna stay wed to these issues or are they gonna try to adapt?

As we're seeing right now, those Democrats who are trying to adapt or move forward, they're already paying a price for it.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, Newsom would have received votes from those who he preaches to in terms of the choir. But when you note transgender issues, illegal migration issues, California is, he's proud to make a California sanctuary state.

Voters don't, very few voters really wanna debate about what does it mean to be a woman?

>> Bill Whalen: Right.

>> Lee Ohanian: Should biological males participate in girls' sports? We know where the governor stands on those, but that is simply not where voters in those swing states stand. So I just simply just don't see him moving the needle whatsoever.

I think people more like Shapiro in Pennsylvania or a slightly more conservative take, which would be Andy Beshear, Governor in Kentucky. I suspect that's gonna be more the future of the Democratic Party. I think Gavin Newsom's political flavor, I think, is probably fading into the past.

>> Bill Whalen: Our colleague Niall Ferguson wrote a really clever column a few months ago about the election.

He called it the Barbie vs Oppenheimer election in that she was running kinda the sorta happy, joyful Barbie campaign, and he was running the dark, sinister Oppenheimer campaign. Lee, if Gavin Newsom had been the candidate, it would have been the McDonald's campaign versus the French laundry campaign.

>> Lee Ohanian: And Gavin wouldn't have been doing prep work in the kitchen.

>> Bill Whalen: And that, by the way, and we can move on after this. My God, the French Laundry, there are a handful of things that are just gum on the shoe for Gavin Newsom. And the photograph of him and Kimberly Guilfoyle lying on the rug in the Getty Mansion is just something he cannot get away from.

The affair he had as mayor of San Francisco. I just notice anecdotally, when I travel around the country and people mention him, it's like the first thing that comes up. And now the French Laundry, that just really sticks in people's craws, I guess, because it's just the embodiment of double standard privileged politicians.

I tell you to stay home, don't go anywhere, and I go to a fancy restaurant and I lie about it.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yes, and it was a political dinner as well. And again, not to pile on the governor, but it was announced either earlier this week or last week that he purchased a $9 million plus home in Marin County.

I don't believe that his office has confirmed that. And apparently he opened a new LLC that purchased that to see if he could fly under the radar. And again, the governor is a wealthy man. He of course, in a market economy, has the opportunity and the freedom to purchase whatever that he's able to afford.

But probably not a great look for him to be governing a state where a third of the population is living in, on or near the poverty line. And there's a $9 million home that he'll be splitting his time between Sacramento and Marin for the next two years as governor.

>> Bill Whalen: What about the mortgages on that?

>> Lee Ohanian: It takes enormous income to qualify for a mortgage on that unless there's an enormous down payment, so we won't know that. But just off the top of my head, if that was a standard 80, 20 mortgage, that's about a $7 million mortgage, 6% interest rate, that's about 500,000 just in interest.

500,000, it's probably about 700,000 including property taxes, just 700,000 for mortgage interest, principal, and taxes. So 700 grand on a home annually, a little bit of a tax savings. Say, that's a deep pocket.

>> Jonathan Movroydis: Gentlemen, New York Post columnist Susan Shelley asked readers if California's progressive facade is shattered beyond repair.

Meanwhile, the LA Times reports that given California's repudiation of progressive policies and office holders, the state's political identity is being questioned. But is it really? And Governor Newsom has called a special session for the state legislature on December 2nd, as you mentioned before. And as Calmatters reports, the session is, quote, to protect California from Donald Trump on civil rights, reproductive freedom, climate action, and immigrant families.

Lee, how can we measure the shift away from the progressivism in California or toward heightened progressivism in the Golden State?

>> Lee Ohanian: Well, so what Newsom and State Attorney General Rob Bonta are particularly worried about is Trump's campaign pledge to deport illegal migrants living in the United States. And who knows how that's gonna play out?

I suspect that any emphasis on that would begin with those with criminal records, which the Governor Newsom's constituents clearly want that to happen. Californians, despite the fact that we're a very, very blue state, 60 to 70% of Californians are very concerned about border security. They view illegal migrants as being a, quote, drain on the state and the economy.

Protecting illegal migrants is what the governor and the state attorney general want to do. But that's gonna require probably billions of dollars from a budget where there simply is not billions of dollars to spend on that. So that's an investment that their constituents simply don't want. They're also worried about California's clean air standards and, in particular, California's low-carbon fuel standards.

And again, this is something that's not in the best interest of Californians, because no matter where people stand on climate change and what the role of green gases are. Everyone agrees that greenhouse gases are a global phenomena. California is responsible for about six-tenths of 1% of global greenhouse gases.

If we could wave a magic wand and shut and become carbon neutral tomorrow, it would literally not matter. It would be a grain of sand on the beach. So California is raising the price of energy in terms of gasoline, in terms of electricity, and also the reliability of electricity.

We've done just a horrible job on that, and for really no other reason than saying, well, California, we want to be proud, we're leading the way in terms of climate change. Well, that's not really selling with Californians anymore. There's enormous pushback on the California Air Resources Board's latest decision to reduce carbon in the state's gasoline supply even more, which is gonna raise California's gas prices substantially.

And Democrats within states, both the assembly and the Senate, wrote letters to the Air Resources Board asking them not to pursue this. Yeah, so I think the short answer is that the direction that Newsom and Bonta are pushing is not one that's consistent with what the state wants and not consistent, I think, with what a successful Democratic Party is gonna look like.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah, Jonathan, you asked about the view of California from within. Well, the view from outside is that it's a freak show in some regards. The New York Post treats California like a chew toy. Almost every week there is some column just taking a shot at California policy.

It's easy, it's shooting fish in a barrel, if you will. But inside California, the view is different. And I think actually you're gonna see lawmakers here much more dug in. And I would refer you, for example, to the Los Angeles Unified School Board of Education, which voted on four different resolutions the other day, one of which is to declare LAUSD a sanctuary district.

And here's kind of an interesting conversation, I think it's gonna happen on immigration. If I'm the left, if I'm a California Democrat, I'm gonna say Donald Trump cannot come and take away children and make this about kids. And I think if Trump were smart about this, if he wanted to kinda do a more nuanced approach, and herein lies the challenge.

Donald Trump and nuanced are antonyms, if ever they're antonyms. But what they could do is go to governor Newsom in the Attorney General, Mr Bonta, and say, look it, we're gonna kind of go through this deportation in phases. And the first phase begins with people in this country illegally who have committed crimes, away they go.

And I would just kinda challenge the governor and the state attorney general to get in the way of that. Because, as Lee mentioned, in terms of public opinion here, I don't think any population is gonna really wanna do favors for criminals. And then maybe you go from that to then saying, okay, there's a deadline here for people coming out of the shadows and reporting themselves.

And then we're gonna look at various ways in which you conducted yourself in this country. Have you worked, have you paid taxes, how much government services have you taken, and so forth, to maybe prioritize it. But, Lee, I would start there, I'd start with that one class and kind of make it sort of a trial balloon, if you will.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, that's the obvious approach that should be pursued. And yeah, I mean, there's no Californians who are gonna be opposed to that. And again, I'll go back to the statistic of about a 25 point swing in favor of Trump, 2024 versus 2020 among Hispanic voters. And ostensibly, that is the immigrant community that the Democratic leadership has thought was having their backwhen it comes to these sanctuary policies, that's not the case at all.

Hispanic voters have roughly the same opinion about illegal migrants as whites, as Asians, as blacks. So Bill, I like the way you put that. Yeah, let's see if Bonta and Newsom are gonna get in the way of that, going after criminals. Politically, I can't see how they would, because there would literally be no support for that.

And then you start there, you see how much costs. You see how many people that you deport who are criminals. And Bill, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Trump kinda declares victory after that. And says, look, in the last two or three years, those 15,000 evicted murderers who are in the country illegally, they're gone.

The X number of other criminals, they're gone. And that would be a win for the country, it would be a huge win for Trump, huge win for the Republican Party. It would be a win, win literally for everyone. So yeah, this is just another case, I think, where the Governor and the Attorney General just touch.

And Bill, we're getting new revenue numbers today from the, from the state's Revenue Department. But there just isn't the money within the budget to spend on the Attorney General's office to defend thousands of legal migrants from, from ICE, deporting them.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah, the last boast out of the Department of Finances, I think they had a $5 billion projection ahead of revenue.

$5 billion doesn't go very far when you're talking about a budget that's several hundred billion dollars. Lee, I wanna circle back to the LAUSD and the Board of Education's resolutions they voted on. I wanna ask you a question, if you get tired of your teaching gig at UCLA, I might have a new teaching gig for you, Lee.

Because one of the resolutions that LAUSD voted on was want to make students, and I quote, ready for the world. And here's what they want to do, Lee, quote, critical thinkers to be able to understand current events, to be able to understand how events impact our politics. To know the effects of specific policy proposals, to be able to understand all sides of key political issues.

And within 160 days from now, LAUSD is supposed to issue report which discusses, quote, the feasibility of establishing a contemporary political issues course for high schools. So Lee, how far do you think you and I would get in California teaching a contemporary political issues course?

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, that sounds great, I don't think we'd be at the top of the list for hired.

And as we've talked about before, not just in LA, but throughout the state. Only one out of four K through 12 kids are proficient at federal standards in math or language arts or science. And I like the idea of preparing kids for the world they're gonna enter, we're not preparing them.

If you can't do the basics, then figure out how to do the basics. And the state's educational system has been failing at that for an awful long time. And the obvious resolutions to making progress on that front, there's obvious changes that need to be made regarding teachers' unions and teacher tenure and the lack of seniority-based pay.

And those are simply anathema within the education political complex. So it's awfully sad, and the saddest part of that is some of these students are going to become the homeless of tomorrow. Which will make a problem that becomes impossible to resolve if we don't address our educational deficiencies.

>> Bill Whalen: Where I think LA misses the mark here is there needs to be an emphasis on civics in high school education. We need to teach kids the origins of the country, why America exists, so kids can understand just the root causes of the revolution, the Civil War, the nuances between a democracy and a Republican, so forth.

They don't need a lesson in contemporary political issues because my God, just how stilted and one-sided will that be? That's just, that's a waste, and the idea of even making that a credit course, I think is just outrageous.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, and how can you appreciate the differences we see today if you don't understand the issues you just noted?

What does it mean to be a democratic republic? What's in the Constitution? What's in the Bill of Rights? If you don't understand that if you can't walk before you run, then good luck if you try to run.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah, but Lee, you can appreciate as Professor Lee, though, it might be the easiest teaching gig in America because all you'd have to do is go in a classroom, Lee, and turn on MSNBC and come back in an hour.

>> Lee Ohanian: That would be the right. I don't know what would be the left, but I suspect for some classrooms MSNBC would be center right. Who knows what they would find for center left, God help us.

>> Jonathan Movroydis: Circling back to the elections for a moment with George Gascon recalled, he was presiding over the case involving Eric and Lyle Menendez.

And he was considering a petition for resentencing both of those men. It was reported yesterday that Governor Newsom won't hear their call for clemency. So that matter won't be addressed until the new prosecutor in Los Angeles is inaugurated. What is the implications of that ruling by Governor Newsom for not offering clemency?

>> Bill Whalen: Well, I think what he said is he wants the process to play through before he does anything. So I don't think he shut the door on it necessarily, has he?

>> Lee Ohanian: I suspect, well, he-

>> Bill Whalen: I think what he said is, look, Nathan Hochman's the new DA.

Hochman has to review things now and then make a recommendation. So I think that's actually what's going on here, that Newsom's waiting to see what the new DA does. But if that's the case, I think I would have two responses. One, is there are more important issues in California right now than the fate of Mendez brothers, I'm sorry, Governor Newsom.

And secondly, it's probably good news for Netflix, cuz they probably get another series out of the Mendez brothers. But, I mean, I hate to be such a jaded cynic, but who cares?

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, one media story I read, it seemed to indicate Newsom had made up his mind, but he was going to wait until Nathan Hockman took office.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah.

>> Lee Ohanian: So I interpreted that as suggesting Newsom was inclined to lead court clemency, but that perhaps he didn't want to step on Hockman's shoes. But, Bill, I agree with you there's a lot more pressing issues that require the Governor's attention.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah, I mean, I'm sorry, you can focus on the fate of the Mendez brothers, or you can deal with what's going on in cities in California right now if you're the governor.

And I think he's much better suited to be worrying about real time problems and what happened to those. Those two characters 30 years ago, end of rant.

>> Jonathan Movroydis: Okay, final question, gentlemen, with Thanksgiving just a week away, what are you especially thankful for, Lee?

>> Lee Ohanian: Well, yeah, Jonathan, I've lived in California, I think, except for a period between 19.

I lived in California, except the time I would been in grad school and I was on the faculties of the University of Pellet. Pennsylvania, Minnesota, which was between 1988 and 1999. Despite all the all the venting bill and I do in our California on your mind columns and in in these podcasts, I love living within the state.

It's just God's smiled when he made California and I'm very thankful for being able to live here. And having a wonderful family and being health to enjoy what just is a remarkable state. I continue to keep my fingers crossed that we will have so I'm thankful to be able to continue to be helpful for better policies.

Because I think just a few small changes, relatively small changes can make it an even better place to live.

>> Bill Whalen: Yeah, it's interestingly, economically, Thanksgiving is a mixed bag for Californians. Wells Fargo did a study, it found that brand turkeys were selling for about 2% less than last year, that's good news.

Brand name stuffing is up about 9%, don't know what's going on there. Cranberry berries are down about 3% due to a bumper crop. And bad news in the Mavrotes household wine prices are up about 2.4% and beer is up 3.3%. I joke because Jonathan is the parent of young children, and boy.

If anything would have me reaching for the pantry, it would be chasing little kids around on Thanksgiving. Yeah, I'm with you, I'm being thankful for California in that regard, Lee. Especially, thankful that Football begins at 9 o'clock in the morning out here on Thanksgiving Day.

>> Lee Ohanian: Yeah, we get a full day of it.

>> Bill Whalen: Yes, well, as always, gentlemen.

>> Jonathan Movroydis: Thank you for another hour of interesting, timely analysis, thank you for your time.

>> Bill Whalen: Thanks fellas. Happy Thanksgiving.

>> Lee Ohanian: Happy Thanksgiving.

>> Jonathan Movroydis: Happy Thanksgiving. You've been listening to matters of policy and politics, the Hoover Institution podcast devoted governance and balance of power here in America and around the free world.

Please don't forget to rate, review, and subscribe to this podcast wherever you might hear it. And if you don't mind, please spread the word, get your friends to have a listen. The Hoover Institution has Facebook, Instagram, and X feeds. Our X handles @HooverInc, that's @Hooverinst, Bill Whalen is on X, his handle is @billwhalenca.

And Lee Ohanian is also on X, his handle is @lee_ohanian. Please visit the hoover website@hoover.org and sign up for the Hoover Daily Report where you can access the latest scholarship and analysis from our fellows. Also check out California on your mind, where Bill Whalen and Lee Ohanian write every week.

Again, this is Jonathan Movroydis sitting in Bill Whalen's chair this week, he'll be back for another episode of Matters of Policy and Politics. Thank you for listening.

>> Presenter: This podcast is a production of the Hoover Institution, where we generate and promote ideas advancing freedom. For more information about our work, to hear more of our podcasts, or view our video content, please visit hoover.org.