After eight years of Gavin Newsom governing California, there’s no clear successor. The field for candidates is crowded, especially for Democrats.

A longtime representative and former Biden official who has surged in polling

An Elizabeth Warren protégée who wants to take on corporate power

A Democratic billionaire climate activist running a populist, progressive campaign

A Trump-backed Republican former talk-show host who is promising a return to an affordable California

The Democratic mayor of San Jose who is focused on building housing and a back-to-basics approach

A Democratic state education superintendent who is running a progressive campaign

A former Los Angeles mayor proposing a more moderate Democratic approach

A Republican sheriff of Riverside who wants a full rejection of liberal politics

Times Opinion brought together a panel of state leaders and local experts to help make sense of the race.

Who Should Govern California?

By New York Times Opinion

California is the site of a series of interlocking problems: It’s just too expensive for many people. There aren’t enough homes, or at least enough affordable ones. The insurance market is a challenge. Homelessness is difficult. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is splitting up families. Federal cuts to universities and health care are rampant. Gasoline and electricity are expensive. Water rights are complicated. Fires and floods and the effects of climate change are already savage. The state is also home to the biggest economic story of our age, artificial intelligence, and remains one of the most beautiful places in the country, where millions want to live.

Whom should voters choose to deal with all of this? The California governor’s race has been chaotic and confusing. Democratic candidates are offering up their party’s full range of choices, from technocratic moderates to progressive populists.

Times Opinion assembled a panel of experts with a range of viewpoints for a new installment of The Choice, aimed at guiding voters — and in California, especially Democratic voters — through the complex issues in this election.

The Choice was prepared by Times Opinion editors, based in part on a round-table conversation with the panelists held on April 24 and a survey from which Times Opinion averaged the panelists’ responses.

We asked panelists to rate the leading candidates on how they would approach governing. Each chart reflects an average of their individual ratings.

What do you think about the overall slate of candidates and the situation for Democrats right now?

It’s been the most interesting thing that I’ve watched in my time in California politics. The field being so wide and so big makes it hard. There’s a lot of noise in the campaign — makes it hard for voters to focus on issues. So we’re really not making decisions on policies.

We haven’t had a campaign like this in really a long time in California. This one is still so fluid. The issues seem to matter a lot less. But the issues are so huge. What’s the next governor going to do with high-speed rail? What’s the next governor going to do about the mental health care system?

We have fine candidates, even good candidates. But I’ve talked with people who’ve worked on these campaigns this year, and just from my own experience in California politics, nobody started the campaign with a statewide profile, especially anything approaching the last three governors: Newsom, Jerry Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger. One of the reasons the election has largely not been about policy differences is because everyone is just struggling to have people know who they are. Sometimes in campaigns in California, that’s a function of money. But Steyer hasn’t pulled away, despite spending more than $130 million as of this recording. I think we’re going to have a pretty fluid race right up until the end.

I actually find it quite exciting. As someone who wants to activate voters, the fact that the outcome is not preset and predetermined, unlike many statewide California races, I find that to be quite stimulating.

I think voters are beginning to get some clarity: If the state wants to move further left, then Steyer and Porter are providing that option. If the state wants to move to the center, that’s where Matt Mahan and Villaraigosa come in. If the state wants to move far right, then Hilton or Bianco are the answer. And for people who want to stay exactly where we are, Becerra has emerged as the safest and most comforting alternative.

A lot of these candidates — Porter, Steyer, Mahan, the Republicans, Eric Swalwell before he dropped out — don’t have much experience in Sacramento. They haven’t served statewide. Is that a problem or a worry? Could it be an advantage? California has a lot of challenges.

It’s notable that up until a few weeks ago, until Swalwell’s sexual misconduct scandal, after which he exited the race, that he on the Democratic side and Steve Hilton on the Republican side were the leading candidates for their parties. These are people who, if you rank all the candidates in terms of experience, they come down near the bottom. But what they had that other people didn’t have is a certain celebrity. They were regular talking heads on Fox News and MS NOW. It’s not like Hollywood celebrity, but it’s political celebrity. And that’s, I think, why they were at the top. If experience mattered to voters, then you would have had the people who ran state agencies — Betty Yee, Tony Thurmond — at the top from the beginning.

I do think that if you’re a member of Congress or a member of the Legislature, you’re one of a zillion. That’s a different kind of experience than actual, literal power brokering or responsibility, like when you’ve been a C.E.O., you’ve been a mayor. The buck stops with you, which is way different.

Well, a candidate who has significant experience is Villaraigosa. He was speaker, was mayor of L.A. It’s a big job. He’s struggling at low single digits. I mean, maybe 5 percent.

Being an executive is such a different job than being even in the Legislature, or a talking head. California’s a big state. We’ve got big challenges. We as voters should demand more. I thought, for example, we should run scenarios and make these candidates react to one of the crises that’s very real in California: A wildfire starts and is spreading. What are the first five things that you’re going to do? A global pandemic is beginning. What are the first five things that you’re going to do? Test these candidates. We need to push for that, because I can’t tell you how any of them are going to react in a global crisis that’s very likely to hit us in the next four or eight years.

Democrats talk about how central Gov. Gavin Newsom is. People have often praised Jerry Brown’s directness with people about problems. Are there any of these candidates that you’ve seen who could have either of those qualities?

I do think that Villaraigosa could be a forceful governor. I also think Steyer could be. And certainly, Porter would be forceful. So they would be a presence, without a doubt, as would Hilton.

I think Steyer and Villaraigosa are not in the likeness of Jerry Brown, but they are willing to be a little bit more straightforward about what the issues are and how they would tackle them. With many of the others, there’s a return to their basic talking points, their stump speech; that doesn’t get voters very far once they start to try and pull back those layers. My sense is that part of the appeal of Steyer is that straight-talk nature he has, or at least a sense of his being willing to take on issues and not being fettered by the Democratic Party or by the interests that perhaps hold other candidates back.

Voting is underway. Can you offer a quick description of a strength and a weakness for a few of the candidates? Let’s start with Xavier Becerra.

Becerra’s strength is he knows the state. His weakness is he is overly cautious.

Becerra has some experience and some relationships in government — that’s a strength. So far, he’s not answering some questions clearly or consistently. That will create real problems; hopefully, that will even out with more exposure under the bright........

© The New York Times