Steyer Drops to 57% to Advance in CA Governor Primary Despite $132M Spend

Tom Steyer's $132M California Bet Is Losing Steam Right When It Matters Most

Tom Steyer has spent $132 million on his campaign for California governor, dwarfing every rival in the field. No candidate in this race comes close. Yet as mail ballots began arriving in California households last week, the billionaire climate activist finds himself polling at just 15% in a four-way contest where Xavier Becerra leads at 20.3% and Republican Steve Hilton sits at 19.6%. The most expensive campaign in the field is not currently in a top-two position with less than a month until the June 2 primary.

Prediction markets have noticed. Over the past three days, Steyer's implied probability of advancing from California's jungle primary has fallen from 65% to 57%, an 8-percentage-point drop driven by two back-to-back debates and the start of mail voting. The timing is not coincidental: once ballots are in voters' hands, the window for campaign spending to shift opinions narrows considerably.

Where the California Governor Primary Market Stands for Tom Steyer

Steyer's 57% probability still makes him more likely than not to finish in the top two. But context matters. This is a jungle primary where only two candidates advance regardless of party. Steyer doesn't need to beat every Democrat; he needs to beat all but one candidate from either party. At 15% in polls, he currently trails both Becerra and Hilton, meaning the market is pricing in a gap between current polling and final results.

Loading live prices…

Kalshi prices Steyer at 56%; Polymarket at 58%. The 2-percentage-point spread between platforms suggests consensus rather than divergent information. The period low of 56% was touched during this selloff, meaning the current price sits just 1 point above the floor. Traders are testing whether this level holds or whether the slide continues as new polling emerges in the coming days.

An 8-percentage-point move in 72 hours is a repricing event, not noise. In prediction market terms, it means roughly $8 of expected value per $100 contract evaporated. Holders of Steyer "Yes" positions watched their portfolio shrink by more than 12% in relative terms over a long weekend.

Scrutiny Over Steyer's Wealth Is Becoming a Liability in the Democratic Primary

The catalyst is traceable. At the April 22 debate, opponents attacked Steyer's past investments in private prisons. At the April 28 debate, the exchanges grew more heated, with candidates scrapping over gas taxes and homelessness while Steyer's self-funding became a recurring talking point. The Washington Post profiled the tension between Steyer's billionaire status and his platform of taxing the wealthy.

California's Democratic primary electorate has a complicated relationship with extreme wealth. This is the state that elected Gavin Newsom but also sent Katie Porter to Congress on a populist consumer-protection message. Steyer's argument, that he'll use his insider knowledge of capitalism to reform it, requires voters to accept a premise they've been trained to distrust. Two back-to-back debates in one week gave rivals ample time to hammer that contradiction on statewide television, right as ballots were being printed.

Betty Yee's endorsement of Steyer on April 20 should have consolidated some Democratic support. Instead, it appears insufficient to offset the damage from sustained attacks.

A Crowded Democratic Field Is Compressing Steyer's Path to the Top Two

California's top-two system creates a specific mathematical problem for Steyer. He doesn't just need to be popular; he needs to be more popular than at least three of his four main rivals. With Becerra at 20.3%, Hilton at 19.6%, Steyer at 15%, and Chad Bianco at 14%, the current polling order would send Becerra and Hilton to the general election, eliminating Steyer.

The Democratic lane is particularly crowded. Becerra has the institutional credibility of a former HHS Secretary. Katie Porter and Antonio Villaraigosa also draw from overlapping voter pools. Every dollar Steyer spends persuading a progressive voter is a dollar fighting gravity in a field where three or four Democrats are competing for what might be 45-50% of the total primary vote. If Republicans consolidate behind Hilton while Democrats remain fragmented, a scenario where no Democrat except Becerra advances becomes plausible.

The Case for Steyer: Why 57% Might Still Be Too Low

The strongest counterargument is straightforward: $132 million buys a ground operation and advertising saturation that polls measured weeks ago may not yet fully capture. Steyer's spending has funded an extensive field program, and California's mail ballot system means early voters may have been reached before the recent debate attacks crystallized. If even a fraction of undecided voters break toward the candidate whose name they've seen most often, Steyer's floor could be higher than polls suggest.

Yee's endorsement could also consolidate a slice of the Democratic vote not showing up in topline numbers yet. And Bianco, currently at 14%, could fade if Republican voters coalesce around Hilton, freeing the second advancement slot for a Democrat. In that scenario, Steyer only needs to beat Porter and Villaraigosa for the second spot, a task where his financial advantage is enormous.

The market, at 57%, is saying Steyer is still more likely to advance than not. That's a reasonable read. But the direction of travel tells a clearer story than the absolute number: confidence is eroding at the worst possible time, and the remaining weeks may not be enough runway for $132 million to buy what two debates have taken away.

What Resolves This Market

The June 2 primary resolves everything. If Steyer finishes in the top two by vote count, contracts pay out at 100%. If he finishes third or lower, they go to zero. There is no partial credit. The binary nature of this resolution means the current 57% price implies bettors see roughly a coin-flip-plus for Steyer to overcome a 5-percentage-point polling deficit against the second-place finisher. That's a bet on money mattering more than the narrative. History in California suggests it often does, but not always, and not by this much.