They can literally pass anything they want. They run all the big cities.
In a state where one party has held every lever of institutional power for sixteen years, Republican Steve Hilton is asking Californians a quiet but pointed question: if you had everything you needed to fix things, why aren't they fixed? Running for governor amid a still-unresolved primary, Hilton frames California's affordability crisis and homelessness not as problems without solutions, but as the natural consequence of unchecked governance — and positions himself as the disruption the state has been waiting for.
- California's housing costs, homelessness, and population exodus have created a political opening that Hilton is moving to occupy with urgency.
- Democrats hold every statewide office, a two-thirds legislative supermajority, and a 6-1 Supreme Court advantage — a concentration of power Hilton calls both the cause of the crisis and the argument for change.
- A tight three-way primary race between Hilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tom Steyer is still being resolved, with Hilton claiming a narrow but durable lead for the second runoff slot.
- Hilton is betting that voter exhaustion with the status quo can overcome California's deep Democratic tilt, framing November as a referendum on sixteen years of single-party rule.
On a Sunday morning, Steve Hilton made a pointed case: California's mounting crises are not accidents but outcomes — the direct result of one party holding unchallenged power for sixteen years and failing to use it well. Taxes have risen, homelessness has spread, and both families and businesses have left a state that once symbolized American possibility.
The structural argument behind Hilton's campaign is hard to dismiss on its face. Democrats control every statewide office, both legislative chambers with a two-thirds supermajority, and the state's highest court by a 6-1 margin. They have faced no meaningful institutional resistance. "They can literally pass anything they want," Hilton told Fox & Friends Weekend — and yet, he argued, the state's most urgent problems remain stubbornly unsolved.
With primary votes still being counted, Hilton appeared positioned to claim the second spot in November's runoff against Democrat Xavier Becerra, with billionaire Tom Steyer fading as a threat. Hilton expressed confidence in his path forward, framing the general election as winnable if Californians could be persuaded that something different was not only possible, but necessary. His campaign's core wager is that exhaustion with the status quo runs deeper than partisan loyalty — and that California may finally be ready to reach for an alternative.
Steve Hilton stood before the cameras on a Sunday morning and made a simple argument: California's crisis is a mirror held up to Democratic governance. The state, he said, is what happens when one party gets everything it wants and no one can stop it.
Hilton, a Republican running for California governor, pointed to the evidence he saw as damning. Taxes had climbed. Homelessness had spread. Families were leaving. Businesses were leaving. The state that once promised opportunity had become, in his telling, a cautionary tale about unchecked power.
The numbers behind his argument were stark. Democrats controlled every statewide office. They held both chambers of the state legislature with a two-thirds supermajority—enough to pass anything without a single Republican vote. They ran the major cities and counties. The state Supreme Court tilted 6-1 in their favor. For sixteen years, Hilton said, they had faced no meaningful institutional resistance. "They can literally pass anything they want," he told Fox & Friends Weekend. And yet, he argued, the state's most pressing problems remained unsolved.
Hilton's critique came as votes were still being counted in California's primary election. The race for governor was shaping up as a three-way contest, with Hilton, Democrat Xavier Becerra, and billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer competing for position. Early returns suggested Hilton could claim the second spot in November's runoff—a result that would pit him directly against Becerra in the general election.
The Republican candidate expressed confidence bordering on certainty about his path forward. He had been leading in the count for most of the previous three days, he noted, and while the race between himself and Becerra remained tight, he saw no realistic path for Steyer to catch up. "I'm very confident we can win once I'm officially in the top two," Hilton said, framing the general election as winnable if Californians could be convinced that change was possible. He positioned himself as the answer to what he described as a desperate hunger for something different.
Hilton's campaign message rested on a straightforward premise: Democratic dominance had failed to deliver. The party had the power to reshape the state according to its vision, yet the results—soaring costs, persistent homelessness, an exodus of residents and employers—suggested that vision had not translated into solutions. For voters exhausted by these conditions, Hilton offered himself as an alternative, someone willing to challenge the Democratic consensus that had governed California for more than a decade and a half.
Citas Notables
California today is what you get when Democrats get everything they want— Steve Hilton
I'm very confident we can win once I'm officially in the top two— Steve Hilton
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When Hilton says Democrats have had "everything they want" for sixteen years, what does he mean by that exactly?
He means they've controlled every lever of power simultaneously—the governor's office, both legislative chambers with a supermajority, the courts. There's been no institutional check on their agenda. They could pass any bill they wanted without a single Republican vote.
But if they had that much power, why frame it as a failure? Wouldn't that suggest their ideas themselves didn't work?
That's exactly his argument. He's saying it's not that they lacked the tools to govern—they had all the tools. It's that the tools revealed something about the ideas themselves. The results speak for themselves: people are leaving, costs are rising.
Is he saying Republicans would have prevented this, or that Democrats made active choices that caused it?
Both, really. He's implying that Republican opposition might have moderated some policies, but more fundamentally, he's saying Democrats made deliberate choices—on taxes, on regulation, on how to handle homelessness—and those choices produced these outcomes.
What's his actual path to winning in November?
He needs to convince Californians that a Republican can win in a heavily Democratic state. He's betting that voter frustration with the status quo is deep enough to overcome party registration and habit. It's a long shot, but he's framing it as possible if people are truly desperate for change.
Does he acknowledge any Democratic accomplishments, or is it all critique?
In what he said publicly, it's all critique. He's not conceding any wins. The entire frame is failure—failure to solve the problems that matter most to people's daily lives.