California’s latest governor’s race offered a familiar lesson for big-city mayors with statewide ambitions: running a city may look like ideal preparation for the governor’s office, but it can be a difficult credential to sell to voters.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan entered the race later than many of his rivals, but he was expected to change the contest. A business-oriented Democrat with a centrist profile by California standards, Mahan pointed to a decline in street homelessness in San Jose and aligned himself with voters frustrated by the post-pandemic politics of crime and public safety.
He also drew major financial support from wealthy backers, including tech figures such as Sergey Brin and Steven Huffman, as well as Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso. Supporters saw him as a younger, problem-solving candidate from Silicon Valley — someone who could appeal to Democrats who were not especially energized by Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer or Katie Porter.
Yet Mahan never broke through. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making another run for governor, struggled as well. Both men conceded after polls closed Tuesday night, having remained near the bottom among the major candidates.
There are several possible explanations. Mahan may have entered too late. The billionaire support behind him may have turned off some voters. California Democrats may be less centrist than his campaign assumed.
But another factor may have been more fundamental: He was a mayor.
In theory, mayors should be strong candidates for governor. They oversee budgets, police departments, housing policy, emergency response, economic development, traffic, homelessness programs and the everyday municipal services that shape residents’ lives. They work with unions, business leaders, neighborhood advocates, police officials and civil rights groups. They are accustomed to public scrutiny, fundraising and political deal-making.
That background seems directly relevant to the governor’s job, only on a statewide scale.
In practice, however, California mayors have rarely made that leap successfully. The same hands-on experience that makes them appear qualified can also create political liabilities. Mayors make decisions that residents see and feel immediately — on encampments, public safety, development, labor contracts, city spending and neighborhood services. Those choices can anger opponents, disappoint allies and leave a long trail of controversies.
Villaraigosa understood that problem when he was mayor of Los Angeles. He often spoke candidly about the difficulty of moving from City Hall to the governor’s office. Big-city mayors, he noted, cannot avoid decisions with consequences. They make compromises, and those compromises are remembered.
Legislators often have an easier path. Members of Congress or the state Legislature vote on bills and champion causes, but individual accountability is usually more diffuse. A mayor, by contrast, is often blamed directly when a street deteriorates, a homeless encampment grows, a labor deal becomes unpopular or a police policy sparks backlash.
There have been exceptions. Pete Wilson, a former San Diego mayor, was elected to the U.S. Senate in the 1980s and later served two terms as governor.
Gavin Newsom also served as mayor of San Francisco before becoming governor, but his path included an important stop in between: two terms as lieutenant governor. That statewide post kept him in public office while lowering his profile during Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, giving him time and distance from the controversies of his years at San Francisco City Hall.
Before that detour, Newsom had pitched himself to influential Democrats as a mayor who had already tested progressive policies in San Francisco. At the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, he cited the city’s health care, wage and environmental policies as evidence that his approach could work statewide.
At the time, Newsom’s likely rival was Villaraigosa, then the high-profile mayor of Los Angeles. Both men were ultimately pushed aside in the 2010 governor’s race by Jerry Brown.
Brown technically had mayoral experience, too, having led Oakland. But he was hardly a typical former mayor. By then, he had already served two terms as governor and held other statewide offices, making his Oakland tenure only one piece of a long political career.
Newsom later won the governor’s race in 2018, defeating Villaraigosa along the way.
Historically, only a small number of California governors have served as mayors. Among the state’s 40 governors, just a few fit that description. William Stephens was mayor of Los Angeles for only 11 days in 1909 before later becoming lieutenant governor and then governor. Washington Montgomery Bartlett was mayor of San Francisco in the 1880s before serving briefly as governor. James “Sunny Jim” Rolph Jr. led San Francisco for nearly two decades before becoming governor in 1931.
The modern political landscape may make the climb even harder.
Mahan could run again in four or eight years, and his 2026 campaign may ultimately be remembered as a first statewide test. But another campaign would come with a longer mayoral record — and likely more decisions that voters can second-guess.
Other California mayors face similar challenges. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has said she has no plans for higher office, and she is facing a difficult reelection fight. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria has been mentioned as a possible future gubernatorial candidate, but his handling of homelessness has drawn criticism. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie also faces the political risks that come with making visible decisions on shelter and street conditions.
For Democratic mayors in California’s largest cities, the balancing act is especially difficult. They must appeal to homeowners and moderate voters who want visible results on crime, homelessness and quality-of-life concerns, while also responding to a progressive base that is increasingly influential in urban politics.
Statewide candidates who have not run cities, such as Steyer or Becerra, also must navigate those ideological tensions. But they do so without the same record of local decisions — and without the daily spotlight that follows a mayor.
Mayors of midsized California cities face a different problem. Many lack the statewide name recognition and fundraising network needed to compete in a governor’s race.
The challenge is not unique to California. New York City mayors often govern a place that differs sharply from the rest of New York state, and the mayoralty there can be more visible than many statewide offices. Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, after leaving office in disgrace, was rejected by voters when he ran for mayor of New York City.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, became a national political figure and later U.S. transportation secretary. But as a Democrat in a strongly conservative state, his chances of becoming governor of Indiana remain remote.
Still, big-city mayors are likely to keep trying. Their experience can be highly relevant to governing a state as large and complex as California. But as Mahan and Villaraigosa found, the background that may prepare a mayor to govern can also make it harder to win.
Original source: CalMatters
