Swalwell supporters scramble after he drops out of governor's race. Who will benefit? 39%

By Nicole Nixon0% Dakota Smith63% Melody Gutierrez0% Seema Mehta0%

4/13/2026, 11:15:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.7% saturation with 367 hits. Analysis detected 1,707 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,197 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.2% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,554 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.90% of the article peer group.

SACRAMENTO  The big-money backers and Democratic heavyweights who tried to crown Rep. 
Eric Swalwell as California’s next governor before his scandal-plagued exit from the political arena are now scrambling to find a new favorite among the candidates they either spurned or actively tried to undercut. 
Swalwell (D-Dublin) announced Monday he would resign his seat in Congress. 
He faced potential expulsion and an ongoing criminal investigation after reports were made public Friday alleging he sexually assaulted a young female staff member and engaged in inappropriate behavior with three other women, including sending them nude photographs. 
Swalwell denied the allegations and, in his announcement Sunday that he was dropping out of the governor’s race, vowed to fight to clear his name. 
The immediate beneficiaries of Swalwell’s fall are likely former Orange County Rep. 
Katie Porter and billionaire financier Tom Steyer. 
Both were challenging Swalwell to be the top Democrat in the race even though each has faced attacks from within the party on various issues. 
This new round of chaos only feeds the anxiety that has enveloped the California Democratic Party for months, stirred by fears that the lack of a singular party front-runner might lead to two Republicans winding up on the November ballot. 
Swalwell’s exit from the race also may revive candidates who have been languishing in the midsection of recent opinion polls  former U.S. 
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan  adding to the uncertainty. 
“What happens now depends on what campaigns do to take advantage of this,” said Andrew Acosta, a Democratic political consultant who is not involved in any of the campaigns. 
The other candidates, he said, “can use this as an opportunity to make their case.” 
They wasted no time. 
Porter’s campaign on Sunday circulated internal polling showing that nearly half of Swalwell’s supporters listed her as their second choice. 
Steyer announced endorsements from lawmakers including Northern California Rep. 
Jared Huffman, who was among the first House Democrats to call on Swalwell to resign from Congress. 
Others quickly used Swalwell’s departure as a fundraising tool. 
“This changes the race,” Mahan’s fundraiser Stephanie Daily Smith wrote in an email blast to supporters on Sunday, adding that Swalwell “had been gaining real traction in the Bay Area media market and now that vote share is up for grabs.” 
Former state Controller Betty Yee told her email list on Monday that “we can forget the polls” that showed Swalwell as a front-runner, suggesting he led because of an “obsession with who looks the part.” 
“I’m not flashy, and I don’t ‘look the part’ of what the talking heads think wins,” she said. 
Swalwell’s campaign had been gathering momentum over the last month. 
A poll released in mid-March by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed that Swalwell and Porter were both supported by 13% of likely voters, with Steyer not too far behind. 
The top Republicans in the race, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, led with 17% and 16% support, respectively. 
Elected officials, labor unions and other groups that had endorsed Swalwell abandoned him en masse after the allegations against him were publicized. 
But it’s unclear which candidate those influential voices will lend their support to next. 
While many Democrats see Steyer and Porter as the next-most viable candidates, they each have their own baggage. 
Steyer has faced criticism on the campaign trail over his former hedge fund’s investments in a private prison company that is now housing people detained by federal immigration authorities, while Porter’s campaign is still haunted by embarrassing videos in which she berated a staffer and belittled a television reporter. 
Primary election ballots will begin hitting California voters’ mailboxes in just a few weeks, and Swalwell’s campaign had been gaining steam and financial support that may now be up for grabs by other candidates. 
Powerful organizations including the California Medical Assn. and SEIU California have poured millions into independent expenditure committees supporting Swalwell. 
But as the scandal unfolded, their leaders called emergency meetings to withdraw their support and pulled the plug on ads supporting him. 
Neither has indicated whether they would re-endorse in the race. 
Over the weekend, Democratic members of the Legislative Women’s Caucus hastily organized calls with Porter and Yee  the only women left in the field of top candidates  according to two people familiar with the conversations. 
Though several of the lawmakers had not planned on backing either candidate, they’re reconsidering, driven by anger at Swalwell and frustration that other qualified women, Lt. 
Gov. 
Eleni Kounalakis and former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, previously dropped out of the race. 
“Epstein files keep coming, Cesar Chavez rocked California and now this,” one lawmaker on the calls said. 
“If we cannot elect a woman to the state’s highest office in 2026, what is wrong with us?” 
Swalwell reported raising more than $7.4 million in direct donations through April 9, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance data. 
About 60% of the contributions were from California donors. 
Stephen Cloobeck, another Swalwell benefactor and longtime Democratic donor, said he is changing his party registration and is considering endorsing Hilton for governor. 
“Don’t be surprised,” Cloobeck said in an interview on Monday. 
“We agree on probably 90% of the issues,” he said, adding that he had met Hilton about a half-dozen times and appreciated his campaign message. 
“We are friends. 
I’m for unity. 
I come from old-school unity. 
I don’t cast aspersions.” 
A protege of the late Sen. 
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Cloobeck entered the gubernatorial contest but dropped out once Swalwell, with whom he had a long-term friendship, jumped into the contest. 
Cloobeck endorsed the congressman and put about $1 million into an independent expenditure committee backing him. 
Swalwell stayed at Cloobeck’s Beverly Hills mansion after the news of the allegations against him broke  until Cloobeck kicked him out. 
Cloobeck said he knows all of the seven prominent Democrats who remain in the governor’s race and has long said he isn’t impressed by any of them. 
He said he wished the California Legislature would amend the state Constitution so he could file to reenter the race. 
Donna Bojarsky, a longtime Democratic political insider in Los Angeles, attended Swalwell fundraisers this year thrown by Hollywood business leaders. 
“People are horrified,” Bojarsky said. 
She said there have been rumors about sexual indiscretions, but nobody suggested allegations of sexual assault. 
Swalwell has close ties to the industry and was set to be an executive producer on a film about the nation’s gun crisis before pulling his name over a labor dispute. 
He also maintains a real estate investment firm and media company geared toward producing television, film and online content. 
Actors Sean Penn, Robert De Niro and Jon Hamm are among several Hollywood figures who donated to Swalwell’s campaign for governor. 
Bojarsky hopes the silver lining of the scandal is that there “might be more of a race” as people scrutinize the field of candidates. 
“People are paying attention,” she said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Nicole Nixon: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Nicole Nixon: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 3.6%Nicole Nixon: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Nicole Nixon: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 8.3%Nicole Nixon: 8.9%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect8.3%This article: 2.8%Nicole Nixon: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion2.8%This article: 0.4%Nicole Nixon: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Nicole Nixon: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias3.4%This article: 2.8%Nicole Nixon: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 30.7%Nicole Nixon: 11.4%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias30.7%This article: 6.3%Nicole Nixon: 5.7%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.0%This article: 3.1%Nicole Nixon: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Nicole Nixon: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Nicole Nixon: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 3.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.3%Nicole Nixon: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority2.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.6%Nicole Nixon: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Nicole Nixon: 6.6%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 2.9%Nicole Nixon: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 7.1%Nicole Nixon: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.4%Nicole Nixon: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal3.4%This article: 1.3%Nicole Nixon: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Nicole Nixon: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.5%Nicole Nixon: 4.0%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice13.5%This article: 0.3%Nicole Nixon: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.3%This article: 3.3%Nicole Nixon: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Nixon: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1197 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech973writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageBetty Yee • 35 words • 0.0% coverageBetty Yee • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 23 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 10 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 25 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 3 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 3 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 5 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 27 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Cloobeck • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDonna Bojarsky • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonna Bojarsky • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonna Bojarsky • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonna Bojarsky • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Betty Yee

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words24% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%Betty Yee: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Betty Yee: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Betty Yee: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.