View this post on the web at [link removed]
Below is our Top Ten List of Winners and Losers for the Week. Well, this week it’s just Losers! This feature is available to all of our subscribers, free and paid.
⏱️ 4 minute read
This is where we examine state and local politics (or national issues with a California angle), and highlight individuals (or groups) who have achieved notable successes or have had a particularly challenging week. I strive to call balls and strikes fairly objectively, which sometimes makes assembling this list a difficult task.
Thank you to our thousands of subscribers. If you know something you think would be of interest, please forward it along!
Top Winners & Losers This Week in California Politics
WINNERS AND LOSERS
⬇️ LOSER: THE CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
In a unanimous vote, the council chose to become California’s first city to move toward a full ban on pickleball in public parks [ [link removed] ], elevating noise complaints over recreation, community use, and basic common sense. A sport that has exploded in popularity among seniors, families, and casual athletes is now being pushed out entirely rather than managed with reasonable rules. The decision reflects a governing philosophy more focused on preservation for the few than access for the many. With Christmas season upon us, we dub these losers the Grinches Who Stole Pickleball.
⬇️ LOSERS: THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By advancing a ban on law-enforcement masking [ [link removed] ], the board once again chose political theater over officer safety. Face coverings protect well-meaning federal officers—and their families—from being identified, harassed, doxxed, or worse in a volatile climate. The board also knows it has no authority over federal agents, making the move largely symbolic. Notably, the board’s only Republican, Kathryn Barger, did not vote for this and does not share in this distinction.
⬇️ VIDEO LOSERS: PROP. 50 OPPONENTS FIGHTING THE MEASURE IN FEDERAL COURT
[We pick one winner of loser of the week and I record a short video commentary!]
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for 2026 the newly redrawn lines in Texas that boost Republicans will be used. That’s good news for the GOP in Texas and nationally. But a closer read of the majority decision [ [link removed] ], authored by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch, made it clear that they see the California redraw as purely political. The legal case to challenge it largely hinges on convincing the courts that there was a racial motive to the changes. Both can be true of course, but you can be sure the three Judges hearing the California case will have read this new decision from the court with much interest. See the images below…
⬆️ WINNER: U.S. REP. DARRELL ISSA
By choosing to stay in California and run for re-election [ [link removed] ], Issa avoided the political sideshow of a Texas detour and instead committed to defending his newly drawn district the hard way—on the ground, with voters. Rather than leaving a competitive seat behind for Republicans to scramble over, he is taking personal responsibility for keeping the district in GOP hands. It is a move rooted in party loyalty, strategic discipline, and a willingness to fight.
⬇️ LOSER: TOM STEYER, DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR
The billionaire environmental activist is now asking voters to believe he is the antidote to the very policies he spent years financing. After bankrolling the climate-change alarmism that drove California’s energy prices far above the rest of the nation, he is attempting a political makeover. His latest rhetoric works hard to obscure the direct link between those policies and today’s crushing utility bills [ [link removed] ]. The rebranding may be convenient on the campaign trail, but the record is clear—and it is costly for ratepayers.
⬇️ LOSER: MEDIA OBSESSION WITH CLICKBAIT EARLY SURVEYS IN THE GOVERNOR’S RACE
Every few weeks another quick-hit poll [ [link removed] ] splashes across headlines as if it signals something meaningful about a race still in its embryonic stage. These surveys generate easy traffic and give “frontrunners of the week” a handy fundraising hook, but little else. Until the candidate field is truly settled—and, more importantly, until we see who actually has the money and institutional backing to communicate with voters—these early snapshots are mostly noise posing as insight. Swalwell surges? Come on people.
⬇️ LOSERS: THE FIVE DEMOCRATS ON THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL
By voting to advance a union-backed scheme targeting self-service kiosks [ [link removed] ], the council majority moved to deliberately wipe out the very cost savings that make those systems attractive to stores and shoppers. The intent is clear: force grocers to hire additional employees to “oversee” technology designed to reduce operating costs. That added labor is not free, and it will be passed directly to consumers through higher prices. This is a regulatory end-run for union interests at the expense of everyday shoppers.
⬆️ WINNER: JIM COOPER, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF
In a high-stakes, real-world test of leadership, the sheriff didn’t manage from behind a desk — he acted. After a former deputy allegedly murdered his 11-year-old son and fled, he personally spotted the suspect’s vehicle on I-5, tracked it in real time, and helped guide pursuing officers until spike strips stopped the car. At a moment when public safety truly mattered, he delivered hands-on law enforcement [ [link removed] ], not political theater.
⬇️ LOSER: HALLE BERRY AND GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM
Berry earns this distinction for reducing a national presidential evaluation to a single, obscure piece of state legislation [ [link removed] ]—though she might well be a winner if she were rejecting him based on his overall governing record. Newsom, meanwhile, is a loser for a different reason: after spending years courting Hollywood and pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into film-industry tax credits as part of his national-profile building, he now finds a high-profile actress publicly undercutting his presidential ambitions. The episode exposes the shallow politics of celebrity culture—and the risks of pandering to it.
Now that you see what this column is all about, keep your eyes peeled. If you have someone you'd like to suggest for featuring in this column next week, please drop me a note. I will keep the names of those who make suggestions confidential. I do typically have a split with winners, too. This week didn’t end up that way!
Now, if you aren’t a free subscriber, sign up. Want all of our content? Become a paid subscriber.
Are yoy a bona fide media professional or a federal or state legislative employee, signing up with your work email? In that case, you will receive a complimentary upgrade to our paid tier upon registration.
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
