Shared research study link
California 2026 Governor Race: Voter Priorities and Messaging
Understand California voter priorities for the 2026 Governor race, reaction to cost-of-living messaging, and attitudes toward corporate accountability positioning
Study Overview
Updated Jan 19, 2026
Research question: What do California Democratic primary voters want in the 2026 Governor race, how do they react to a “no corporate donations/hold powerful interests accountable” message, and which cost‑of‑living actions signal seriousness.
Research group: n=6 CA Democratic primary voters (ages 34–65) from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Jose/Chula Vista, including a loss‑prevention specialist, project managers/small‑business operators, a utilities worker, and a retiree; one participant is a tax‑paying green‑card holder.
What they said: They want results with receipts-competence, measurable execution, and public accountability-over rhetoric, prioritizing operational fixes (permits, DMV/EDD, grid/utilities, procurement) plus program wins (housing with treatment‑first homelessness, targeted action on organized retail/car theft, reliable transit/active mobility), with secondary asks for apprenticeships, junk‑fee/bill transparency, and a few region‑specific issues (e.g., Tijuana River sewage, right‑to‑repair).
Main insight: Credibility hinges on visible, near‑term proof points (100‑day actions, quarterly scorecards, bilingual dashboards) and even‑handed enforcement that protects small operators. On corporate accountability, the pledge resonates as a starting signal only if loopholes are closed (no PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs, dark money), donors are disclosed in real time, “powerful interests” is defined to include unions/contractors/real estate/tech/nonprofits when warranted, and enforcement delivers clawbacks/debarments/prosecutions with year‑one milestones and a small‑biz firewall.
On cost of living, voters favor an enforcement‑first, measurable plan: hard permit/zoning shot clocks with by‑right infill and ADUs (auto‑approval if cities stall), public‑land workforce housing, audited utility performance tied to rates, junk‑fee bans and grocery‑margin transparency, targeted automatic relief (CalFresh/credits), and a public dashboard tracking housing, prices, and reliability.
Takeaways: Publish loophole‑proof donation rules and 48‑hour donor disclosures; stand up a “Receipts” dashboard with monthly KPIs; launch permit shot‑clock pilots plus pre‑approved ADUs; name and win 2–3 early fights (e.g., block a utility hike, debar bad contractors, dismantle fencing rings); pair enforcement with a small‑biz firewall and bilingual communications.
Research group: n=6 CA Democratic primary voters (ages 34–65) from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Jose/Chula Vista, including a loss‑prevention specialist, project managers/small‑business operators, a utilities worker, and a retiree; one participant is a tax‑paying green‑card holder.
What they said: They want results with receipts-competence, measurable execution, and public accountability-over rhetoric, prioritizing operational fixes (permits, DMV/EDD, grid/utilities, procurement) plus program wins (housing with treatment‑first homelessness, targeted action on organized retail/car theft, reliable transit/active mobility), with secondary asks for apprenticeships, junk‑fee/bill transparency, and a few region‑specific issues (e.g., Tijuana River sewage, right‑to‑repair).
Main insight: Credibility hinges on visible, near‑term proof points (100‑day actions, quarterly scorecards, bilingual dashboards) and even‑handed enforcement that protects small operators. On corporate accountability, the pledge resonates as a starting signal only if loopholes are closed (no PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs, dark money), donors are disclosed in real time, “powerful interests” is defined to include unions/contractors/real estate/tech/nonprofits when warranted, and enforcement delivers clawbacks/debarments/prosecutions with year‑one milestones and a small‑biz firewall.
On cost of living, voters favor an enforcement‑first, measurable plan: hard permit/zoning shot clocks with by‑right infill and ADUs (auto‑approval if cities stall), public‑land workforce housing, audited utility performance tied to rates, junk‑fee bans and grocery‑margin transparency, targeted automatic relief (CalFresh/credits), and a public dashboard tracking housing, prices, and reliability.
Takeaways: Publish loophole‑proof donation rules and 48‑hour donor disclosures; stand up a “Receipts” dashboard with monthly KPIs; launch permit shot‑clock pilots plus pre‑approved ADUs; name and win 2–3 early fights (e.g., block a utility hike, debar bad contractors, dismantle fencing rings); pair enforcement with a small‑biz firewall and bilingual communications.
Participant Snapshots
6 profiles
William Rasco
William Rasco, 34, is a Sacramento-based small business banking associate and careful budgeter. Married, co-parenting a 6-year-old, William values transparency, community, and convenience; balances gym time, streetwear and movies with road trips and volunte…
Laura Lopez
Laura Lopez, 65, widowed in San Francisco, is a bilingual former auto-restoration co-founder with $200k+ income. She lives simply with her dog, values durability, privacy, and community, enjoys DIY, coastal hikes, and practical, data-backed products and tra…
Wayne Rasco
Wayne Rasco, 60, a married Sacramento utilities lead with no kids. Practical and community-minded, he skips home internet, relies on mobile, favors durable, safety-rated gear and clear pricing, hikes and shoots landscapes, and budgets carefully while uninsu…
Jared Payamps
Bilingual, 40-year-old Los Angeles legal services professional. Single, no kids, rents in Koreatown. Privacy-focused, structured, and community-minded. Commutes by e-bike and Metro, supports family in Colombia, values transparency, durability, and clear ser…
Hugo Lara
Calm, detail-oriented loss prevention specialist in Chula Vista. Bilingual, uninsured, and managing a back disability, Hugo Lara values reliability, privacy, and family. Hugo Lara owns his home, rides a motorcycle, and favors straightforward, bilingual, saf…
Filemon Roe
1) Basic Demographics
Filemon Roe is a 51-year-old White, US-born male living in San Jose city, California, USA. He speaks English at home, is divorced with no children, and identifies as religiously unaffiliated. He has some college education (A…
William Rasco
William Rasco, 34, is a Sacramento-based small business banking associate and careful budgeter. Married, co-parenting a 6-year-old, William values transparency, community, and convenience; balances gym time, streetwear and movies with road trips and volunte…
Laura Lopez
Laura Lopez, 65, widowed in San Francisco, is a bilingual former auto-restoration co-founder with $200k+ income. She lives simply with her dog, values durability, privacy, and community, enjoys DIY, coastal hikes, and practical, data-backed products and tra…
Wayne Rasco
Wayne Rasco, 60, a married Sacramento utilities lead with no kids. Practical and community-minded, he skips home internet, relies on mobile, favors durable, safety-rated gear and clear pricing, hikes and shoots landscapes, and budgets carefully while uninsu…
Jared Payamps
Bilingual, 40-year-old Los Angeles legal services professional. Single, no kids, rents in Koreatown. Privacy-focused, structured, and community-minded. Commutes by e-bike and Metro, supports family in Colombia, values transparency, durability, and clear ser…
Hugo Lara
Calm, detail-oriented loss prevention specialist in Chula Vista. Bilingual, uninsured, and managing a back disability, Hugo Lara values reliability, privacy, and family. Hugo Lara owns his home, rides a motorcycle, and favors straightforward, bilingual, saf…
Filemon Roe
1) Basic Demographics
Filemon Roe is a 51-year-old White, US-born male living in San Jose city, California, USA. He speaks English at home, is divorced with no children, and identifies as religiously unaffiliated. He has some college education (A…
Overview
0 participants
Sex / Gender
Race / Ethnicity
Locale (Top)
Occupations (Top)
Demographic Overview
No agents selected
| Age bucket | Male count | Female count |
|---|
Participant locations
No agents selected
Participant Incomes
US benchmark scaled to group size
| Income bucket | Participants | US households |
|---|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)
Media Ingestion
Connections appear when personas follow many of the same sources, highlighting overlapping media diets.
Questions and Responses
3 questions
Response Summaries
3 questions
Word Cloud
Question Summary
Preparing summary…
Summary
Themes
| Theme | Count | Example Participant | Example Quote |
|---|
Outliers
| Agent | Snippet | Reason |
|---|
Analyzing correlations…
Generating correlations…
Taking longer than usual
Persona Correlations
Analyzing correlations…
Overview
Voters treat a pledge to refuse corporate donations and hold powerful interests accountable as a credible starting position only when it is translated into concrete rules, near-term enforcement, and local proof points. Cost-of-living remedies are evaluated operationally - permit shot clocks, by‑right infill, utility audits, anti‑junk‑fee rules and targeted relief - and credibility hinges on named targets, timelines (100‑day moves and quarterly reporting), visible donor disclosure, and demonstrable enforcement (clawbacks, prosecutions, debarments). Attitudes cluster by locale, age and work experience: frontline and trades workers emphasize safety and household bill relief; mid‑career urban professionals prioritize housing production and permitting throughput; older high‑income respondents emphasize administrative competence and even‑handed enforcement; business‑facing project managers want outcomes with protections for small operators. Across segments, voters want definitions (who counts as a corporate donor), loophole closure (PACs/LLCs/bundlers), and public metrics rather than purity rhetoric.
Total responses: 18
Key Segments
| Segment | Attributes | Insight | Supporting Agents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Latinx, working‑age, frontline/public‑facing (Los Angeles / Chula Vista) |
|
Respondents in this segment respond well to anti‑corporate‑donation positioning when it is tied to concrete local harms (retail theft enforcement, hospital billing, utility overcharges) and when bilingual outreach and immigrant protections are embedded. They expect rapid, visible enforcement and named targets for procurement reform and anti‑fraud actions. | Hugo Lara, Jared Payamps |
| Mid‑career urban professionals and managers (LA / San Jose / Sacramento) |
|
This group prioritizes housing supply and permitting reform (100‑day shot clocks, ADU/4‑plex by‑right), transparency dashboards, and concrete anti‑dark‑money rules (no bundlers, no PAC pass‑throughs). They judge candidates on execution capacity and want measurable program‑management cadence (100‑day actions, quarterly report cards). | Filemon Roe, William Rasco, Jared Payamps |
| Older, high‑income retirees / San Francisco homeowners |
|
Despite higher income, these voters prioritize administrative competence, procurement discipline, and process integrity (CEQA fixes tied to clear procedures). They demand even‑handed definitions of 'powerful interests' that can include unions, contractors and nonprofits, and favor clear budgeting and less theatrical politics. | Laura Lopez |
| Trades, utilities and maintenance workers (mid‑to‑late career, Sacramento) |
|
Prioritize grid reliability, wildfire mitigation, workforce training, and utility accountability. They are skeptical of performative enforcement and favor tangible operational safety measures that reduce household risk and insurance pressure. | Wayne Rasco |
| High‑income, business‑facing project managers / small‑business owners (San Jose / Silicon Valley) |
|
Wants outcomes: permit throughput, protections for honest small businesses (a 'small‑biz firewall'), and targeted anti‑fraud measures that hit large offenders while avoiding burdensome compliance for mom‑and‑pop operators. Precise operational timelines and cadence are persuasive to this group. | Filemon Roe |
Shared Mindsets
| Trait | Signal | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Demand for measurable accountability | Across demographics, voters insist on named targets, timelines and public metrics (100‑day moves, quarterly report cards, dashboards) as the baseline for believing anti‑corporate and cost‑of‑living promises. | Filemon Roe, Hugo Lara, Jared Payamps, William Rasco, Laura Lopez |
| Skepticism of 'no corporate money' as pure symbolism | Respondents want definitional clarity and loophole closure (PACs, LLC pass‑throughs, bundlers) plus full donor disclosure; gestures alone are viewed as insufficient. | Hugo Lara, William Rasco, Wayne Rasco, Jared Payamps, Filemon Roe |
| Local, concrete impacts drive trust | Voters link accountability language to neighborhood‑level pain points (utility bills, hospital billing, retail theft, permitting delays) and demand evidence of changes at those scales. | Hugo Lara, Wayne Rasco, Jared Payamps, Laura Lopez, William Rasco |
| Operational competence matters more than rhetoric | Preference for candidates who demonstrate program management and agency capacity - hires, budgets, investigators - and who can explain tradeoffs plainly. | Laura Lopez, Filemon Roe, William Rasco, Wayne Rasco |
| Protect small actors while targeting large‑scale offenders | Strong consensus for a 'small‑biz firewall' to shield honest operators from overbroad enforcement while pursuing monopoly pricing, no‑bid contracts, and organized criminal rings. | Filemon Roe, William Rasco, Hugo Lara, Laura Lopez |
Divergences
| Segment | Contrast | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Expand accountability beyond corporations (Jared Payamps) | Most respondents frame accountability toward private corporations and powerful private interests; Jared uniquely emphasizes holding government actors and law enforcement equally accountable, broadening the target set and blurring public/private boundaries. | Jared Payamps |
| Cadence and metric precision (Filemon Roe vs. peers) | Filemon is unusually prescriptive about program cadence (100‑day actions, quarterly report cards) and demands explicit metric schedules; peers generally call for transparency and enforcement but are less prescriptive about cadence. | Filemon Roe, William Rasco, Hugo Lara |
| Definition of 'powerful interests' (Laura Lopez) | Laura seeks an even‑handed, cross‑cutting definition that explicitly includes unions, contractors and nonprofits; other segments focus more narrowly on corporate, utility, or private sector influence. | Laura Lopez |
| Operational priorities: safety/infrastructure vs housing/permits | Trades and utility workers prioritize grid reliability, wildfire mitigation and workforce training; mid‑career urban professionals focus on housing production, permitting reform and transit reliability - both want accountability but emphasize different operational levers. | Wayne Rasco, Filemon Roe, William Rasco |
Creating recommendations…
Generating recommendations…
Taking longer than usual
Recommendations & Next Steps
Preparing recommendations…
Overview
California voters in this study reward a Governor who delivers results with receipts: clear targets, frequent public progress, and tough, even‑handed accountability. Credibility hinges on translating broad promises into operational fixes voters can feel on their block: faster housing permits and by‑right infill, treatment‑first homelessness, cross‑jurisdictional action on organized retail and car theft, reliable transit and safe active‑mobility, and grid/wildfire/insurance stabilization. The anti‑corporate‑donations message resonates only if paired with loophole‑proof rules (no PACs/bundlers/dark‑money), visible donor disclosure, and near‑term enforcement (clawbacks, debarments, prosecutions). Voters want a 100‑day plan, quarterly scorecards, bilingual comms, and a small‑biz firewall. For Claude (API test page; Claude x Ditto integration), prioritize lightweight, ROI‑positive deliverables that productize this cadence: a public 'Receipts' dashboard, definitional pledge pages, and bilingual message packs that can ship fast and iterate.
Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)
| # | Action | Why | Owner | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Publish donation & accountability rules that close loopholes | Voters back 'no corporate money' only if it bans PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs and dark‑money; early clarity signals seriousness and reduces hypocrisy attacks. | General Counsel + Compliance | Low | High |
| 2 | Stand up a public 'Receipts' scorecard shell | Creates a visible home for 100‑day targets on permits, housing, utilities, theft, and junk fees; builds the accountability habit from day one. | Data/Engineering (Claude x Ditto) + COO | Med | High |
| 3 | Bilingual message pack: 'Results with receipts' | Aligns cost‑of‑living, housing shot clocks, and loophole‑proof accountability in English/Español; matches study’s demand for plain, local proof points. | Comms Director | Low | Med |
| 4 | Announce permit shot‑clock pilots + pre‑approved ADU plans | Directly addresses the top pain point (permits/housing); a pilot creates a near‑term win and proof of concept. | Policy Director (Housing) + City Partners | Med | High |
| 5 | Name 3 first‑year accountability targets | Voters want named fights: e.g., oppose a pending utility rate hike, launch procurement debarment list, and stand up a retail‑theft fencing task force. | Policy Director + AG/DOJ Liaison | Low | High |
| 6 | Small‑biz firewall + ombuds line | Preempts 'anti‑business' attacks while focusing enforcement on large offenders; requested by small‑operator voters. | Small Business Liaison | Low | Med |
Initiatives (30–90 days)
| # | Initiative | Description | Owner | Timeline | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CA 'Receipts' Dashboard (public metrics, bilingual) | Build a simple, mobile‑first dashboard that tracks: median permit time (pilot cities), units permitted/started near transit, grocery basket vs wholesale margin index, utility reliability (SAIDI) and bill trajectory, enforcement outcomes (clawbacks/debarments), transit on‑time, and donor disclosure latency. Ship v1 fast; iterate monthly. | Data/Engineering (Claude x Ditto) + COO | Design + data model (0–30 days); v1 live (day 45–60); monthly enhancements (ongoing) | Data‑sharing MOUs with cities/agencies, Independent data QA + privacy review, Ditto integration for content management (EN/ES) |
| 2 | 100‑Day Cost‑of‑Living Action Pack | Execute a bundle of near‑term moves: permit shot clocks in 2–3 pilot cities; pre‑approved ADU plans; anti‑junk‑fee EO (tickets, hotels, delivery, rental apps); weekly grocery margin transparency; EBT anti‑skimming refunds within 10 business days; CPUC audit directive tying rate increases to reliability metrics. | Policy Director + COO | Draft + announce (0–30 days); implement (day 30–100); first results on dashboard (by day 100) | Agency head alignment (HCD, DOJ, CPUC, Social Services), Legal review for EO scope, Retailers/distributors data cooperation |
| 3 | Housing Production & Preemption Package | Advance by‑right small‑scale infill near transit, CEQA streamlining for infill/additions, state‑land leasing for workforce housing, and HCD/AG enforcement for non‑compliant cities (including funding penalties and receivership triggers). | Policy Director (Housing) + General Counsel | Leg text + coalition (0–60 days); introduce + whip votes (60–120); enact + defend (120–270) | Legislative champions, HCD enforcement capacity, Litigation defense fund |
| 4 | Organized Retail Theft & Fencing Rings Task Force | Stand up cross‑county case‑building (CHP/DOJ/DAs), data‑sharing on serial offenders, and safe‑store protocols that protect workers; focus on fencing networks and repeat crews over low‑level incidents. | Public Safety Lead + DOJ Liaison | MOUs + playbook (0–45 days); first coordinated ops (day 60–120); quarterly case stats | County DA buy‑in, Retailers’ data + camera evidence standards, Worker‑safety groups collaboration |
| 5 | Utility, Wildfire & Insurance Stabilization | Tie rate approvals to measurable reliability/wildfire mitigation; prioritize undergrounding on highest‑risk circuits; expand vegetation management/prescribed burns; evaluate reinsurance backstop linked to hardening standards; align exec comp with service outcomes. | Energy/Climate Lead + CPUC Liaison | Policy framework (0–60 days); CPUC filings + pilots (60–180); annual review (12 months) | CPUC cooperation, CalFire + utility data, Budget for hardening grants |
| 6 | Workforce & Apprenticeships Accelerator | Scale night/weekend programs at community colleges; embed PLAs and apprenticeship targets in housing/grid projects; bilingual outreach for mid‑career transitions; small‑biz incentives for placements. | Workforce Director + Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office | Design + partners (0–60 days); first cohorts (90–180); scale with project pipeline (6–12 months) | Union and employer partners, Budget reallocation, Childcare/transport supports for trainees |
KPIs to Track
| # | KPI | Definition | Target | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Permit Median Days (pilot cities) | Median days from complete application to approval for code‑compliant infill/ADU projects in pilot jurisdictions. | 50% reduction by day 180; maintain ≤120 days thereafter | Monthly |
| 2 | Transit‑Oriented Housing Starts | Units permitted and started within 0.5 miles of frequent transit corridors. | +25% YoY in pilot corridors within 12 months | Quarterly |
| 3 | Grocery Basket Index | Public basket price vs wholesale/margin dashboard for 12 staples, benchmarked to U.S. average. | CA basket inflation ≤ U.S. within 9 months | Monthly |
| 4 | Utility Reliability & Affordability | SAIDI (outage minutes per customer) and average residential bill trend vs CPI; tie to approved rate cases. | SAIDI −10% YoY; avg bill growth ≤ CPI | Quarterly |
| 5 | Accountability Outcomes | Material enforcement actions: debarments, clawbacks, prosecutions tied to procurement/wage/utility abuses. | ≥10 material actions in first 12 months | Quarterly |
| 6 | Transparency Cadence | On‑time dashboard updates and donor disclosures posted within 48 hours. | 100% on‑time for both | Monthly |
Risks & Mitigations
| # | Risk | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loophole or hypocrisy attacks on 'no corporate money' (PACs, bundlers, dark money). | Codify bright‑line rules; refuse coordination; 48‑hour donor disclosure; return suspect funds publicly. | General Counsel + Compliance |
| 2 | Litigation against housing preemption/shot clocks delays delivery. | Narrow, infill‑focused design; robust administrative record; legal defense fund; start with pilots to show public benefit. | Policy Director (Housing) + General Counsel |
| 3 | Data quality or delays undermine the 'Receipts' dashboard. | Independent data audit; phased rollout; clear caveats; automate pipelines with QA checks. | Head of Data (Claude x Ditto) |
| 4 | Backlash from unions/nonprofits if labeled 'powerful interests'. | Publish even‑handed criteria; emphasize small‑biz firewall; pre‑brief stakeholders and focus on documented abuses. | Coalitions Director |
| 5 | Perception of being anti‑business while cracking down on fees and enforcement. | Pair enforcement with permit simplification, ombuds support, and targeted relief for honest operators; highlight small‑biz wins. | Comms Director + Small Business Liaison |
| 6 | Missing early milestones creates 'all talk' narrative. | Pick winnable fights; resource pilots; empower agency leads; publish reasons/corrections when misses occur. | COO/Campaign Manager |
Timeline
- 0–30 days: Publish loophole‑proof donation rules; announce 100‑day plan; sign MOUs for permit pilots; stand up dashboard skeleton (EN/ES); name 3 accountability targets.
- 30–100 days: Launch permit shot clocks + ADU pre‑approved plans; anti‑junk‑fee EO live; grocery margin transparency weekly; EBT anti‑skimming refunds SLA; DOJ retail‑theft MOUs; CPUC audit directive filed.
- 100–180 days: First permit time cuts reported; initial housing starts near transit; early debarments/clawbacks; SAIDI trendline visible; transit safety/frequency boosts on priority corridors.
- 6–12 months: Legislative housing/preemption package enacted; utility hardening pilots scaled; workforce cohorts placed on projects; dashboard expands to statewide metrics with independent audit.
Research Study Narrative
Objective and context
Objective: Understand California voter priorities for the 2026 Governor race, reaction to cost‑of‑living messaging, and attitudes toward corporate‑accountability positioning. Across six respondents per question, the through‑line is clear: voters reward competence, measurable execution, and public accountability over rhetoric.
Cross‑question learnings (with evidence)
Accountability pledge: Refusing corporate donations resonates only as a starting signal. Voters demand loophole‑proof rules (no PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs, dark money), visible donor disclosure, and near‑term enforcement (clawbacks, procurement reform, prosecutions) with milestones in year one. As Hugo Lara put it, “I’m not clapping for a bumper sticker… it resonates if it comes with receipts.” Laura Lopez insists on an even‑handed definition of “powerful interests” that includes unions, contractors, real estate, tech, and grant‑funded nonprofits; some also extend accountability to government actors and law enforcement.
Governor priorities: Voters want operational fixes plus program outcomes: housing and treatment‑first homelessness with public outcome tracking; targeted public safety against organized retail and vehicle theft; permitting/DMV/EDD and procurement reform; reliable transit and active‑mobility; grid/utilities and wildfire resilience. “Results with receipts-clear targets, quarterly updates, not glossy pressers” (Lopez). “Streamline case‑building across counties” on organized retail theft (Lara).
Cost of living: The preferred posture is enforcement‑first and measurable. Top asks: permit and zoning reform with hard shot‑clocks and by‑right small‑scale density near transit (“Slash permitting time to a hard cap with auto‑approval” - William Rasco); state use of public land and workforce housing; junk‑fee bans and grocery margin transparency (“weekly wholesale‑to‑shelf margins” - Lara); utilities held to audited performance; and automatic, targeted food/cash relief (CalFresh recert simplification, Double Up Food Bucks, indexing WIC/school meals - Jared Payamps). Voters want public dashboards updated monthly to verify progress (Lopez).
Persona correlations and nuances
- Latinx frontline/public‑facing (LA/Chula Vista): Strong response to concrete local harms (retail theft, utility overcharges), bilingual outreach, rapid enforcement, and named procurement/anti‑fraud targets.
- Mid‑career urban professionals: Prioritize housing production, permit throughput (100‑day shot clocks), transparency dashboards, and dark‑money closures; judge on execution cadence (quarterly scorecards).
- Older high‑income SF homeowners: Emphasize administrative competence, process integrity, and even‑handed definitions of “powerful interests.”
- Trades/utilities workers: Focus on grid reliability, wildfire mitigation, workforce training, and measurable utility accountability.
- Business‑facing PMs/small‑biz owners: Want outcomes with a small‑biz firewall-target large offenders while avoiding burdens for honest operators; insist on precise timelines.
Recommendations (what to do and why)
- Codify loophole‑proof donation rules (ban PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs; 48‑hour disclosure) to convert symbolic resonance into credibility.
- Stand up a public “Receipts” dashboard (EN/ES) tracking permit times, transit‑oriented housing starts, grocery basket vs wholesale margins, utility reliability/bills, and enforcement outcomes.
- Launch permit shot‑clock pilots + pre‑approved ADU plans to address the top pain point and show cranes on the skyline.
- Name three first‑year accountability targets (e.g., oppose a utility rate hike, procurement debarment list, retail‑theft fencing task force) to meet “teeth, not tweets” expectations.
- Advance a housing preemption package for by‑right small‑scale infill near transit, paired with enforcement for non‑compliant cities.
Risks and guardrails
- Hypocrisy attacks on “no corporate money”: Mitigate with bright‑line rules and returning suspect funds.
- Litigation delaying housing reforms: Start with infill‑focused pilots, build a strong record, and fund defense.
- Data quality undermines dashboard: Independent audit, phased rollout, automated QA.
- Backlash from unions/nonprofits: Publish even‑handed criteria and emphasize the small‑biz firewall.
- “Anti‑business” perception: Pair enforcement with permit simplification, ombuds support, and targeted relief.
Next steps and measurement
- 0–30 days: Publish donation rules; announce a 100‑day plan; sign MOUs for permit pilots; launch dashboard skeleton (EN/ES); name three accountability targets.
- 30–100 days: Activate shot clocks and ADU plans; issue anti‑junk‑fee EO; publish weekly grocery margins; set EBT refund SLAs; DOJ retail‑theft MOUs; CPUC audit directive.
- 100–180 days: Report permit time cuts; initial transit‑adjacent starts; early debarments/clawbacks; visible reliability trendline; transit safety/frequency boosts.
- KPIs: Permit median days (−50% by day 180); transit‑oriented housing starts (+25% YoY in pilots); Grocery Basket Index (CA ≤ U.S. within 9 months); Utility SAIDI (−10% YoY) and bill growth ≤ CPI; Accountability outcomes (≥10 material actions in 12 months), with monthly/quarterly cadence as specified.
Recommended Follow-up Questions
Updated Jan 19, 2026
-
Which transparency and verification approaches would most increase your confidence that a Governor is delivering on promises? Please rank from most to least convincing.rank Identifies the most persuasive proof mechanisms to feature in rollout and ongoing communications.
-
How acceptable are each of the following campaign funding sources for a gubernatorial candidate?matrix Guides fundraising boundaries and how to message donation rules beyond a no‑corporate pledge.
-
On housing policy, where do you fall on the spectrum between prioritizing faster statewide permitting/preemption to increase supply and prioritizing stronger rent stabilization/tenant protections and local review?semantic differential Calibrates the policy and messaging balance on housing supply versus tenant protections.
-
Which types of entities should be prioritized for accountability actions during a first term?maxdiff Focuses enforcement targets and refines the ‘hold powerful interests accountable’ agenda.
-
Which cost-of-living message frames resonate most with you?maxdiff Optimizes top‑line affordability messaging for ads, stump, and website.
-
How many months would you give a new Governor before expecting visible progress on your top issue?numeric Sets realistic delivery timelines and cadence for early‑win communications.
For maxdiff/rank items, pretest concise, policy‑specific lists (e.g., audits vs dashboards; sector targets; message frames) to ensure clarity and reduce overlap.
Study Overview
Updated Jan 19, 2026
Research question: What do California Democratic primary voters want in the 2026 Governor race, how do they react to a “no corporate donations/hold powerful interests accountable” message, and which cost‑of‑living actions signal seriousness.
Research group: n=6 CA Democratic primary voters (ages 34–65) from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Jose/Chula Vista, including a loss‑prevention specialist, project managers/small‑business operators, a utilities worker, and a retiree; one participant is a tax‑paying green‑card holder.
What they said: They want results with receipts-competence, measurable execution, and public accountability-over rhetoric, prioritizing operational fixes (permits, DMV/EDD, grid/utilities, procurement) plus program wins (housing with treatment‑first homelessness, targeted action on organized retail/car theft, reliable transit/active mobility), with secondary asks for apprenticeships, junk‑fee/bill transparency, and a few region‑specific issues (e.g., Tijuana River sewage, right‑to‑repair).
Main insight: Credibility hinges on visible, near‑term proof points (100‑day actions, quarterly scorecards, bilingual dashboards) and even‑handed enforcement that protects small operators. On corporate accountability, the pledge resonates as a starting signal only if loopholes are closed (no PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs, dark money), donors are disclosed in real time, “powerful interests” is defined to include unions/contractors/real estate/tech/nonprofits when warranted, and enforcement delivers clawbacks/debarments/prosecutions with year‑one milestones and a small‑biz firewall.
On cost of living, voters favor an enforcement‑first, measurable plan: hard permit/zoning shot clocks with by‑right infill and ADUs (auto‑approval if cities stall), public‑land workforce housing, audited utility performance tied to rates, junk‑fee bans and grocery‑margin transparency, targeted automatic relief (CalFresh/credits), and a public dashboard tracking housing, prices, and reliability.
Takeaways: Publish loophole‑proof donation rules and 48‑hour donor disclosures; stand up a “Receipts” dashboard with monthly KPIs; launch permit shot‑clock pilots plus pre‑approved ADUs; name and win 2–3 early fights (e.g., block a utility hike, debar bad contractors, dismantle fencing rings); pair enforcement with a small‑biz firewall and bilingual communications.
Research group: n=6 CA Democratic primary voters (ages 34–65) from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Jose/Chula Vista, including a loss‑prevention specialist, project managers/small‑business operators, a utilities worker, and a retiree; one participant is a tax‑paying green‑card holder.
What they said: They want results with receipts-competence, measurable execution, and public accountability-over rhetoric, prioritizing operational fixes (permits, DMV/EDD, grid/utilities, procurement) plus program wins (housing with treatment‑first homelessness, targeted action on organized retail/car theft, reliable transit/active mobility), with secondary asks for apprenticeships, junk‑fee/bill transparency, and a few region‑specific issues (e.g., Tijuana River sewage, right‑to‑repair).
Main insight: Credibility hinges on visible, near‑term proof points (100‑day actions, quarterly scorecards, bilingual dashboards) and even‑handed enforcement that protects small operators. On corporate accountability, the pledge resonates as a starting signal only if loopholes are closed (no PACs, bundlers, LLC pass‑throughs, dark money), donors are disclosed in real time, “powerful interests” is defined to include unions/contractors/real estate/tech/nonprofits when warranted, and enforcement delivers clawbacks/debarments/prosecutions with year‑one milestones and a small‑biz firewall.
On cost of living, voters favor an enforcement‑first, measurable plan: hard permit/zoning shot clocks with by‑right infill and ADUs (auto‑approval if cities stall), public‑land workforce housing, audited utility performance tied to rates, junk‑fee bans and grocery‑margin transparency, targeted automatic relief (CalFresh/credits), and a public dashboard tracking housing, prices, and reliability.
Takeaways: Publish loophole‑proof donation rules and 48‑hour donor disclosures; stand up a “Receipts” dashboard with monthly KPIs; launch permit shot‑clock pilots plus pre‑approved ADUs; name and win 2–3 early fights (e.g., block a utility hike, debar bad contractors, dismantle fencing rings); pair enforcement with a small‑biz firewall and bilingual communications.
Awaiting responses…
Usually takes — seconds
Taking longer than usual
Question
0 responses
Waiting…
| Name | Response | Info |
|---|