Weird & Viral news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Steve Hilton blames broken system for Gov. defeat despite promising $3 gas and huge tax relief. But he’s not done yet
Steve Hilton says his defeat in California’s governor’s race has not changed his belief that his “Positive Populism” agenda could help working people and inspire a wider political revival. He argues that decades of economic growth have not improved life for many ordinary families, and that voters’ frustration with the status quo remains a force in politics.
Hilton says his campaign performed relatively well for a Republican despite being heavily outspent, and claims it cut Democrats’ long-standing 20-point lead among voters outside the Democratic Socialists of America. His proposals included no state income tax on the first $150,000 of income, a $73 cap on vehicle registration and reducing petrol prices to $3 a gallon. He attributes the loss partly to California’s election system and the national mood, and says he will continue advocating for workers and small businesses.
In short
- Hilton remains optimistic after losing California’s governor’s race.
- His platform included tax relief and $3-a-gallon petrol.
- He says the political system must change to help working people.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Hilton’s argument is that strong headline growth has not translated into security or affordability for many families, so politics should offer substantial relief to workers and small businesses. Supporters may see his tax and cost-cutting proposals as a direct response to that frustration, and his campaign’s performance despite limited resources as evidence that this message has wider appeal.
The case against
Critics may argue that the proposals promise large savings without showing how the state would replace lost revenue or deliver lower petrol prices, making their practical effects uncertain. They may also see the defeat as evidence that voters were unconvinced by Hilton’s programme, rather than proof that the election system or national mood prevented it from succeeding.