Californians overwhelmingly recognize their state's problems but refuse to empower Republicans to fix them, according to a new Manhattan Institute survey of likely voters conducted between September 24 and October 1. The poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters statewide and another 449 in Los Angeles, revealing a political stalemate: residents want substantial policy shifts on homelessness, government spending, and public-sector unions, yet their appetite for change stops well short of supporting the opposition party. The result is a vacuum where a lethargic Democratic establishment can keep winning without delivering results, while the organized far Left stands ready to capture voters demanding an alternative.
The data show deep dissatisfaction with California's trajectory. Only 32 percent of residents believe their state is headed in a better direction than others, while 45 percent say it's doing worse. Fifty-six percent consider California less business-friendly than peer states, compared with just 14 percent who rate it more welcoming to enterprise. Infrastructure earns worse ratings than better ones by 43 percent to 16 percent, and 81 percent say the homelessness crisis exceeds that of other states. Cost of living, taxes, and jobs dominate voter priorities at 47 percent, far surpassing government waste and corruption at 17 percent. Governor Gavin Newsom holds a 52 percent unfavorable rating versus 46 percent favorable, while Vice President Kamala Harris is underwater statewide, with nearly a quarter of her own 2024 supporters now viewing her negatively. In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass faces 61 percent unfavorable ratings and just 33 percent favorable. Yet Attorney General Xavier Becerra leads Republican challenger Steve Hilton in the gubernatorial race by 55 percent to 38 percent, and even independents who say California is headed in the wrong direction prefer Becerra to Hilton by 48 percent to 39 percent.
The survey reveals substantial support for policies that challenge progressive orthodoxy. Sixty percent cite addiction and mental illness over housing costs as the primary driver of homelessness, and 62 percent to 20 percent consider involuntary treatment more compassionate than protecting an addicted person's right to refuse help and stay on the streets—a view shared by a majority of Democrats. Sixty-three percent back limiting public-sector union power if it would make disciplining poor performers easier, reward good ones, and deliver better services at lower cost; 53 percent of Democrats agree. Seventy-one percent worry about waste, fraud, and abuse in welfare programs, with 53 percent prioritizing crackdowns over making benefits easier to obtain. A proposed 5 percent billionaire wealth tax draws just 35 percent support and 50 percent opposition, failing to win even half of Democrats. Author Jesse Arm writes that "this is not evidence that California has secretly become conservative," but there's "a substantial constituency for government that spends responsibly, enforces standards, and treats public services as obligations to residents rather than privileges for organized interests."
The survey explains this contradiction through political identity rather than policy disagreement. When presented with two hypothetical Los Angeles mayoral candidates—one emphasizing rent freezes, free buses, city-run grocery stores, and higher taxes, the other stressing housing construction, reduced red tape, stronger enforcement, and treatment—voters preferred the moderate by 47 percent to 39 percent when labeled generically. But when the same policies were attached to New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie by name, voters flipped to Mamdani by 43 percent to 35 percent. According to the report, this demonstrates that "the moderate agenda can compete" but "the political identity attached to it matters enormously." The survey points to San Francisco as a hopeful model, where Lurie assembled a coalition including local Republicans and the Briones Society alongside Democrats, delivering cleaner streets and consolidated homeless services without requiring a full Republican takeover. California's partisan loyalties give the Democratic establishment "considerable insulation from failure" while also giving the far Left "an advantage when it claims to be the only available alternative," the report finds.
The Manhattan Institute study concludes that changing California's governing direction will require a coalition whose members disagree on national politics but unite around responsible spending, enforced standards, and accountable public services. The test for reform-minded candidates is whether they can bridge the gap between the policies Californians support and the political identities they'll accept. Without that bridge, the state faces a future where dissatisfied voters lack a compelling alternative and the demand for change flows to candidates whose broader agendas undermine the very reforms those voters claim to want. California has plenty of residents who understand something is broken—what it lacks is a durable political vehicle for fixing it.