Why key Democrats backed Eric Swalwell for California governor. It’s ugly | Opinion

The public and the media have moved on from disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, but a question remains: Why did so many influential California Democrats and left-leaning unions enthusiastically endorse the guy in the first place?

Rumors of Swalwell’s conduct had existed for years, but there was plenty of publicly available information indicating he would have been a disaster as governor.

Swalwell had never served as an executive and had no Sacramento experience. He rarely showed up to work in Congress, missing more votes than a guy who died. He was a policy lightweight with few legislative accomplishments. His California residency appeared to exist only to the extent required by law to run for Congress, and he had relocated his family to the Washington, D.C. area. He had a questionable relationship with an alleged spy, and his financial records showed he owed $50,000 to $100,000 in student loans, used campaign funds to pay for more than $244,000 in child care expenses from 2019 to 2025, and $25,000 to Uber Eats and more than $105,000 for ride-hailing services.

No matter. Swalwell had momentum. Too many chose supporting a candidate grossly unfit to be governor of California because he appeared likely to win as opposed to helping someone more qualified get over the hump.

Swalwell’s list of endorsers included a healthy chunk of the California Democratic establishment, including U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, California Teachers Association, SEIU California, California Federation of Labor Unions, U.S. Reps. Doris Matsui, Linda Sanchez, Mike Thompson, Jimmy Panetta, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Jimmy Gomez, Lou Correa, and Adam Gray, Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor, Corey Jackson, Nick Schultz, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, John Harabedian and Marc Berman, state Sen. Josh Becker.

That’s a powerful coalition of endorsers that would be the envy of any Democratic candidate in California. Some of the endorsements make sense on the surface, certainly anyone with a regional connection or those who had served with him in the House.

But Swalwell, according to the New York Times, was known in Sacramento largely through reputation only. People knew the guy they’d seen on TV – the partisan warrior who spent most of his time fighting President Donald Trump or raising a ruckus at committee hearings.

Of course, CNN hits aside, his record against Trump was unimpressive. Swalwell helped the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and was an impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment proceedings. While the former led to some convictions and helped document that Russia did in fact play a role in the election, both efforts failed to take Trump down. In other words, his biggest accomplishment was going 0-for-2 against Trump.

I ask again: Why did anyone endorse him?

It couldn’t have been that anyone was impressed with Swalwell’s list of accomplishments because there was little to speak of and no one was inspired by his debate performances because he skipped them.

His buddies in Congress helped. Democratic U.S. Reps. Adam Gray and Jimmy Gomez, both of whom served recently in the Legislature, made inroads for him in the Capitol.

But this is also the first time in a long time there wasn’t an air of inevitability in the race, and the transactional nature of California politics demands that insiders back a winner. The California Charter School Association stands as a cautionary tale, having spent $22 million backing Gavin Newsom’s opponent for governor, former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, in 2018. It backfired.

So in a race as wide open as this one has been, groups and lawmakers scrambled to bet on the right horse — it has not been pretty. For example, the California Teachers Association endorsed Swalwell apparently because he showed up to a protest (which describes basically every Democratic elected official). Assemblymember Tasha Boerner has now endorsed five times in the governor’s race as Swalwell and others have dropped out, while California Federation of Labor Unions has endorsed four candidates at once (including Swalwell).

They so desperately want to be able to say: “we were there for you when you needed us most,” and it doesn’t matter if he’s a disaster as long as he’s their disaster.

The New York Times reported that when Swalwell was making the rounds in Sacramento, he was “presenting a sort of middle-of-the-road, ‘I’ll work with everyone’ kind of vibe,” which also should have been a red flag. If candidates are all things to all people, they’re not taking strong enough positions. But public employee unions seemed to like it, as did many Democrat politicians.

For what it’s worth, whenever a public employee union endorses a candidate it’s safe to assume they are acknowledging that this is with whom they would most like to negotiate (a pushover, that is).

No endorsement or election is without risk. Experienced candidates can be terrible on the job, and inexperienced candidates can rise to the occasion — but nothing about Swalwell’s history suggested he was a good option.

In choosing Swalwell, endorsers were disregarding obvious red flags because they perceived some benefit for themselves. He would have been bad for California, but good for them, which suggests their interests are at odds with the state.

It says a lot about their judgment, and that’s something that should not be easily swept aside.

Matt Fleming is an opinion writer living in Placer County. You can follow him on X @Flemingwords or connect via email: flemingwords@gmail.com.