Since 1998, Republican candidates for governor in California have gotten 38 percent, 42 percent, 56 percent, 41 percent and 40 percent in the general election. Will that figure be 0 percent in this November’s race?

That is the consensus of state pundits and analysts with former Sacramento Rep. Doug Ose becoming the third GOP candidate seeking to replace termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown, joining Huntington Beach Assemblyman Travis Allen and Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox. Unless one of the three Republicans breaks out as the strong favorite of the expected 40 percent GOP share of June primary voters, there is a good chance that the November election will pit Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom against former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – two Democrats.

“It gets very hard to do the math to find some scenario where a Republican gets enough votes to slip into the runoff,” Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s a math problem. It makes a Dem-on-Dem race more likely if you continue to split the Republican vote.”

“I think Doug Ose’s heart is in the right place … but he further dilutes the field,” Bill Whalen, a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, told the Los Angeles Times. “If all the Republicans stay in, it’s mutually assured destruction.”

In the most recent major poll – released by the Public Policy Institute of California in late November – Newsom had 23 percent, Villaraigosa 18 percent, Cox 9 percent, state Treasurer John Chiang 9 percent and Allen 6 percent.

Ose told the Chronicle that the state GOP establishment privately hailed his decision to join the race. Like Ose, Cox is a wealthy businessman who can self-fund his campaign if necessary. But Cox has never held office. Allen, meanwhile, has little name recognition and has struggled to raise funds.

Allen hammers Cox for not voting for Trump in 2016

Cox is launching a statewide radio ad campaign this week targeting Newsom for high state taxes. Allen, meanwhile, is bidding to become the breakout GOP candidate by emphasizing his leadership of one attempt to overturn the unpopular gas tax hike approved by the Legislature last year and his support for President Donald Trump.

In their first debate on Jan. 4 in Mentone – before Ose joined the race – Allen slammed Cox over and over for voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the 2016 presidential election.

“If you didn’t vote for the Republican nominee for president in 2016, you supported Hillary Clinton,” Allen said, according to an L.A. Times account. “If you’re not voting for Trump, you’re voting for crooked Hillary.”

Cox has said he shunned Trump in 2016 not because of Trump’s various controversies that campaign season but because of his history of voting for Democrats. Cox expresses regret for backing Johnson and says he is now a Trump admirer. Ose has been a consistent supporter of Trump.

Polls suggest the U.S. Senate race in November will have only Democratic candidates as well. With no high-profile GOP candidate yet in the picture and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer deciding against running, incumbent Dianne Feinstein seems poised for a November showdown with Senate President Kevin de León.

Chronicle senior political writer Joe Garofoli suggested the lack of Republican candidates for the state’s two top elections could hurt GOP turnout. But November ballot measures affecting taxes, guns and public education could still generate substantial Republican interest – especially the bid to repeal the gas tax hike and an attempt by Democrats to roll back parts of Proposition 13 to allow for annual tax hikes on commercial properties.

The column set off a war of words over the difference between legalization and decriminalization, with critics panning the column as “misleading,” “irresponsible” and “an unsubstantiated hot take.”

But the column’s author, Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, shot back on Tuesday in an interview with CalWatchdog, saying: “There is no war of words; the Democrats are lying about this.”

War of words

Allen’s critics have argued that California lawmakers (mostly, but not exclusively, Democrats) did not legalize child prostitution. Instead, child prostitution was decriminalized, in that minors could not be arrested and charged with prostitution or for loitering in public with the intent to commit prostitution. 

But Allen told CalWatchdog on Tuesday that decriminalization and legalization are the same thing. And in his column he argued that the new law makes it so that law enforcement can’t “interfere with minors engaging in prostitution.” 

Is there a difference?

At first glance, the difference between decriminalization and legalization may seem like the type of petty detail in a dispute between politicians that would frustrate the average constituent. 

But in practical terms, the difference in this instance is that while minors are immune from charges related to prostitution, customers and pimps are not. It is just as illegal as ever to purchase or sell sex with a minor, a fact noted by both The Sacramento Bee, which called Allen’s column “misleading,” and the conservative website Red State, which wrote Allen’s editorial was “an unsubstantiated hot take.” 

“Pimping is still illegal. Solicitation of sexual acts – whether from a minor or an adult – is still illegal. Statutory rape is still illegal,” Red State wrote. “So how is it that law enforcement can’t interfere?”

“Even so, Mitchell’s bill does allow for law enforcement to ‘interfere’ and for the minor to be adjudicated as dependent and brought into state custody,” Red State added.

Allen argued to CalWatchdog that under the new law, custody is only temporary. Allen added that legalization (or decriminalization) of child prostitution removed a tool for prosecutors, as the charges against minors were often pleaded down or dropped in exchange for testimony against pimps and others involved in the crime.

What’s the point?

In late September, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1322, which made it no longer a crime for minors to engage in prostitution. The point was to treat minors engaged in prostitution as victims of crimes instead of criminals. 

The line of logic used by the bill’s sponsor, Senator Holly Mitchell, in a recent interview with KCRA, was that children under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to sex and therefore it’s rape. The Los Angeles Democrat also called Allen’s column “irresponsible.”

“You cannot consent to any kind of sexual experience if you’re under 18,” Mitchell said. “And so how then therefore could you be convicted of prostitution?” 

So what’s your solution?

When asked what more should be done to combat child prostitution, Allen said SB1322 was a step backwards. When asked again –  what specifically could be done to reduce child prostitution – Allen told CalWatchdog, “There’s always more that could be done,” and then repeated SB1322 was not the solution.

Whose law is it?

The Bee debunked claims made by Allen about certain opponents of the measure, as well as the claim that the law was “passed by the progressive Democrats,” when in fact moderate Democrats and a few Republicans supported the measure as well (though it was just a few Republicans).

“He includes a quote from Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley stating that decriminalizing child prostitution ‘opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse,'” The Bee wrote. “O’Malley initially opposed the bill, but ultimately signed on as one of the its highest-profile supporters.”