Progressive Tom Steyer takes the lead in the California governor race.

[aeromanKC]

Based on early April 2026 data, Tom Steyer has emerged as a top contender and favorite in prediction markets following Eric Swalwell's decline, with some markets giving him a 56-57% chance of winning.

To guarantee the Democratic party win it would be nice if a few more Democrats stepped out of the race. It would be devastating if the Democrats highest candidate finished third.

[msongs]

1. one wonders who will be the next one to have the attention of influencers nt

[EdmondDantes_]

25. Hopefully each and every one that has a problem like Swalwell

That shouldn't be a controversial position. But hey if you don't like the influencers there's always the press who have validated the accusers stories.

[Jacson6]

2. You mean oligarch Steyer.

We should not fall for these billionaires that want to rule just becuz they say they are Democrats.

[aeromanKC]

3. Nice to have a billionaire on the side with Progressives for a change.

[True Dough]

4. Feel the same about Pritzker?

I'm not judging, just curious if you'd make an exception there.

[pinkstarburst]

19. The only billionaire oligarchs I make exceptions for

and the only ones who would get my vote if they were on the ticket, is ones who have paid their taxes, ALL their taxes, for the past 20 years on ALL their wealth, not using the loopholes that shelter the uber-rich to build disgusting amounts of wealth on the backs of working people.

So if Pritzger and Steyer have been doing that for the past 20 years, I would vote for them if it ever came to that (hopefully it won't.) If they haven't, let's just hope someone else is on the ticket because, no thanks! I don't want our government run by Bezos, Musk, Larry Ellison or any other billionaire oligarch, and that includes ones who call themselves democrats while not paying their fair share of taxes.

[msongs]

5. not sure the fascist sheriff would be better nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. J D Pritzker is a billionaire and he rocks.

[TexasBushwhacker]

22. Normally I'm not crazy about billionaires leapfrogging

into top positions in politics, Trump being a prime example. But at least Pritzker tried running for the HOR first and lost. Then he ran for governor and won.

Steyer is doing the start at the top thing too. Yes, he's been generous with supporting progressive causes with his philanthropy, but how can he claim to be serious about climate change when his hedge fund invested in COAL MINES? He's invested in private prisons too. Fuck that.

I don't live in California, so I guess it doesn't matter, but I still like Katie Porter.

[LSparkle]

30. Me too (Porter) and also like Xavier Becerra

I’m angry at Steyer for grabbing for the spotlight without governing experience when he could wield more power with his money in other ways. Years ago he could have afforded to buy Clear Channel and provide Progressives with a media foothold but he invested in private prisons instead. Now he wants to be the boss of California? I don’t know about that ...

[choie]

32. He's an anomaly.

n//t

[FascismIsDeath]

16. You apparently don't know what the word "oligarch" means.

[Scrivener7]

39. Do you always need to belittle the person you are responding to?

[FascismIsDeath]

40. I don't "need" to do anything. I don't even "need" to respond.

When you lose a loaded term like "oligarch" and aim it at a decent guy that has done good things with his money, I find it offensive and I respond however I feel like responding, if I feel like responding at all. You'll live.

[Scrivener7]

41. I guess you do.

[Bobstandard]

6. He's not a progressive

He’s a lot of things, some good some bad. But he ain’t a progressive. I’m sorry about the Swalwell thing because I thought he was our best bet to beat the Republicans and Steyer.

It ain’t over till it’s over.

[RandomNumbers]

14. 'Progressive' has a lot of definitions.

He founded this organization - https://nextgenamerica.org/

History, including where the org's money has gone, with links- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextGen_America

NextGen America is a progressive advocacy nonprofit and political action committee created in 2013 by billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. The group mobilizes young voters on issues including climate, health care, reproductive freedom, immigration, and equality.[1] Since its founding, the 501(c)(4) organization has registered 1.3 million voters, and contacted millions of young people with messages encouraging them to vote.[2]

It seems "progressive" to me but NOT "far left".

[karynnj]

17. I think Swalwell was an outspoken anti Trump representative,

but he wasn't as progressive as most Representatives especially given how Democratic his District was. I know that any organization creating rankings looks at specific votes important to them and especially as "progressive" seems to be defined differently by different groups, rankings can differ a lot. Here is one: https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=house

However Progressive Punch has a listing that ranks representatives by how progressive they are relative to their districts leaning. On this, he is ranked very poorly. 214! Not to mention, if you look at the raw percentages of correct votes, one in the high 80s, one in the low 90s, he is lower than many representatives considered to be moderates.

The only issue I know about Steyer is that he was very good on the environment. I realize that not having years of votes cast, he will have the luxury to define his positions mostly based on what he believes now

[Nixie]

8. I thought the "progressives" had a war on billionaires.

[Intractable]

9. Some say, "He's one of the good ones."

YMMV

[Nixie]

10. Yes, he says the magic words "Medicare for all" but the

billionaire Trump also had magic words. We’re back to believing magic word billionaires.

Then all the actual real-life dirty tricks Steyer has pulled to gain wealth are overlooked, but anyone who dared to give speeches is cancelled. It’s quite a show.

[RandomNumbers]

15. Can you explain / give evidence for these statements?

You said: "Then all the actual real-life dirty tricks Steyer has pulled to gain wealth are overlooked, but anyone who dared to give speeches is cancelled. It’s quite a show."

Who was cancelled just because they "dared to give speeches"?

I'd be interested in links to credible sources describing the "dirty tricks" you mention. If it is just, "he ran a hedge fund and hedge funds are evil" .... well I'm partly with you there but he exited that in 2012. I don't begrudge people for being wealthy, and I'm sometimes willing to overlook past behavior, if it is long enough in the past, and depending how awful it was vs. for example just being 'go with the flow, follow the mainstream path'.

I'm not in CA and my opinion in the Gov race doesn't matter, except that in general I don't think we should automatically write Steyer off for being a billionaire. It depends on how he is living and using his wealth NOW. Which on the surface seems okay - but you may have good sources, and I am interested to see them.

[pinkstarburst]

21. How is he living and using his wealth?

How about is he paying taxes on ALL that wealth, and has he been for the past 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Or has he been using the cushy tax shelters billionaires get in order to get rich on the backs of working people?

If it's the latter, then I would never vote for him, or Pritzger for that matter.

[MichMan]

35. "Or has he been using the cushy tax shelters billionaires get in order to get rich on the backs of working people?"

You mean following the tax laws as passed by Congress?

[pinkstarburst]

36. If any billionaire has been profiting off the

wealth loopholes designed to help the rich grow richer so that they do not have to pay taxes on the vast majority of their wealth, they are never getting my vote.

We've already gone through this with the current corrupt billionaire in office. Pritzger also used his billions to buy his way into office, and now Steyer is doing the same thing.

[Nixie]

24. There was a candidate named Hillary Clinton . Do you remember how she was demonized

for giving speeches? No evidence was needed then, just generalized references to corruption.

Sorry, but your question doesn’t seem genuine. “Dirty money” “millionaires and billionaires,” now only “billionaires” Wall Street”. “Hedge fund” “private prisons”. All manner of words were used against individuals to suggest corruption. It looks like you are ready to give Tom Steyer, the billionaire, a pass on all of those words because he says Medicare for all. It’s quite trippy to watch these new contortions.

[OhioBack2Blue]

27. We do...

but we are also pragmatists and deal in the reality of the situation at the present moment.

The vision is getting unlimited and dark money out of politics. Corps are not people. Citizens United was an egregious error of law.

Fetal personhood is barking down the same absurd path.

[Nixie]

37. The pragmatist part of the corruption insinuations has never been pragmatist.

None of it dealt with reality or the present moment. It was all a manufactured facade meant to smear people.

The problem with that whole construct is that now all the smears need to be undone to accommodate the magic word billionaire.

[Mz Pip]

11. I'm a cynic

Steyer would be a gazillion times better than either of those two MAGA wannabes.
I never get my perfect candidate. Ever. I’ve learned to live with that.

[lostnfound]

12. Weird, this poll shows Steyer and Katie Porter tied. What are you quoting?

https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/orange-county-voters-sour-trump-and-newsom

[Emile]

13. Tom Steyer and former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, a Democrat, each drawing 14% support.

[the_liberal_grandpa]

18. Remember that polls are not votes

California is a deep blue state and Democrats are not going to vote for a repub.
I think many repubs won't vote either.

Democrats will do fine.

And even if they don't no repub is getting any crazy shit passed by the veto proof house and senate.

Steyer may not be bad but I am leaning towards Katie Porter.

She's tough and can get things done. She also probably doesn't have a lot of career ending skeletons in her closet.

[OhioBack2Blue]

29. Katie Porter is fantastic. We need her back in the arena. Steyer has been so sketchy over the last 20 years.

[travelingthrulife]

20. Oh yeah, that's all that we need, another oligarch

I especially like the ones who pretend they are liberals.

[beaglelover]

23. Yeah, another billionaire!

[helpisontheway]

26. I don't know anything about him but people on Reddit are calling him a fake democrat

They believe he is trying to say the right things to get elected. Democrats got it wrong with Fetterman in the Senate and Adam’s in NY so I’m not sure. I can’t believe that we are in danger of losing CA again. Especially with someone like Trump in the White House.

[aeromanKC]

28. With 3 top Dems eating into each others support, it easily can get both R's on the General ticket and lock out the Dems.

Dems need another top D to drop out.

[fujiyamasan]

31. Steyer is not only a. Billionaire

But a hedge fund billionaire, whom I viscerally distrust. They made their money not by selling
products or services, but basically manipulating markets.

He is supposedly big on green energy. Fine, but how should I trust that he won’t steer state tax money to his own business interests or those of his buddies in the same vein as Trump, because it’s “green”? People in this state are struggling. The gas prices are by far the highest in the country. This man has no clue, and likely doesn’t give a shit either.

I didn’t care for Porter’s antics and it’s a shame Becera’s campaign hasn’t taken off, but at this point I’ll vote for Porter because she has proven which side she is on. I don’t want another oligarch presiding over Sacramento. But I’ll have to vote for him over the fascist sheriff, if it came down to it. Right now the bigger threat is two republicans finishing first and second.

[senseandsensibility]

33. Steyer does put his money where his mouth is

He paid for an extensive ad campaign to pass Prop 50 here in CA. I will say that anti Steyer ads (funded by Swalwell) have been and are still running here. One of the slams is that he invested in private prisons.

[Mz Pip]

34. I'm pretty cynical at this point

I’ll vote for whoever is ahead when it comes time for me to vote. I never get my perfect candidate so I don’t expect to this time. The perfect is the enemy of the good. I’m good with any of them.

It would be so ironic if in a year of a big blue wave, California end up with a Republican governor. 😖

[Nanjeanne]

38. Tom Steyer has a very interesting trajectory and while I am always cautious of billionaires in politics

Steyer has certainly walked on the right side of most issues. And even those where he was against some things important to me — like against Medicare For All while he was a big supporter and fundraiser for Hillary when she ran against Bernie — he has in December 2025, reversed his position, posting to a video to social media in which he stated he was "wrong" to oppose single-payer healthcare, saying "Bernie Sanders was right" and that after looking at data, he came to believe that single-payer was the best choice.

He has definitely put his mouth and his money in the right place re climate. He supports taxing wealthy. Supports assault weapon bans, opposes Citizens United, etc. I don’t vote in CA and I admire Katie Porter. But I would have no problem supporting Steyer should he be the nominee. While I abhor that his hedge fun invested in private prisons Steyer has repeatedly expressed remorse about his former firm’s ties with the detention company. In 2012, he sold his stake in Farallon. I wish he had been as “pure” a progressive with nothing in his background to give me pause — but that’s just not the way it is. So looking at the total package and where he stands almost 15 years later — Im more impressed with what he is for now than willing to throw it all out for what his hedge fund did.