Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) suspended his gubernatorial campaign Sunday after four women accused him of sexual misconduct or assault.
One woman, a former staffer of the congressman, told the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN that Swalwell sexually assaulted her twice, in 2019 and 2024. Another woman told CNN that she woke up in Swalwell’s hotel room with no memory of how she’d gotten there. Two others told CNN that they’d received unsolicited sexual photos and messages from Swalwell. Swalwell has denied the allegations, though has seemed to allude to infidelity to his wife in various statements.
The allegations prompted a flood of Democrats to withdraw their endorsements, urge Swalwell to drop out of the race and call for his resignation from Congress before his term is up in January. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said Saturday that it is investigating the allegation of sexual assault that allegedly occured in New York in 2024; the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office said that it’s “evaluating” whether criminal conduct occured in 2019.
“I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s,” Swalwell said Sunday on Twitter.
The push for Swalwell’s expulsion could trigger a historic week in the House, as various lawmakers from both parties call to also boot Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) (who admitted to having an affair with a subordinate who later committed suicide), Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) (who allegedly assaulted a woman and threatened his ex-girlfriend with revenge porn) and Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) (who allegedly embezzled COVID relief money to fund her campaign).
But on top of all that, Swalwell’s disgraceful downfall adds a new wrinkle to an already strange California race.
Swalwell, who had a slight if not decisive edge, had been duking it out with former Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) and billionaire-turned-presidential candidate Tom Steyer. A huge group of lesser-known Democrats also languished in the single digits, refusing to exit the race and keeping the vote share split. Meanwhile, two Republicans — former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff and voter fraud alarmist Chad Bianco — were splitting the GOP vote, raising the specter that the two Republicans would advance to the general election in the state’s jungle primary system, locking Democrats out of the governor’s mansion in the biggest blue state.
Democratic party leaders, including the term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), had largely avoided endorsing in the race, seeming to hope that the standoff would resolve on its own.
Last week, things began to change. President Donald Trump, ironically, was the first to throw the paralyzed Democrats a lifeline, endorsing Hilton on April 6 against the wishes of state Republicans. Analysts expect the endorsement to push some of Bianco’s supporters to the president’s choice, potentially decreasing his vote share enough for a Democrat to get through to the general election.
When asked whether the endorsement was a tactical mistake, Hilton told the New York Times that Democrats never would have allowed the Republicans to finish in the top two spots and that the endorsement made it more likely that voters would have a “real choice in November.”
California Republicans, though, did not follow Trump’s lead at the state party’s annual convention over the weekend, with delegates failing to endorse either candidate. Bianco was reportedly expected to win the state party’s endorsement before the Trump nod, though, suggesting that some delegates were swayed by the president’s intervention.
The Republicans failing to evenly split the percentage of the vote available to them is only one way for Democrats to avoid the nightmare lockout scenario. The other is for one of the Democratic candidates to catch real fire and pull ahead of the crowded pack.
Swalwell had been leading, slightly, with around 11 or 12 percent in most polls. If those voters redistribute themselves to Porter or Steyer, that would likely be enough for that candidate to get through.
Some of the California heavyweights may start intervening more aggressively to prod would-be Swalwell voters in one direction. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was quick off the mark to call for Swalwell, who she hadn’t endorsed, to exit the race after the allegations broke.
An accurate encapsulation of the current situation with the California Governor’s race, thank you, I appreciate that.
But I have an objection. The term “Jungle Primary”.
What is the etymology of that slang term? Does anyone know? Who coined it?
Because it sounds pretty racist to me. I’m not going to reference the many slurs on Black Folks and Indigenous people that have involved the word “Jungle”, but it is an ugly way of describing a system that is probably fairer than previous primary voting systems.
Thoughts?
From an outsider’s perspective, Porter seems the best choice, no?
Apologies for the length, but I plugged in two prompts into Gemini (I know… I know…), and got the following:
Where did the term “jungle primary” come from?
Summary
The term “jungle primary” originated in Louisiana during the 1970s. It refers to a nonpartisan blanket primary system where all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on the same ballot. The “jungle” metaphor suggests a “law of the jungle” environment—a competitive free-for-all where only the top two finishers survive to the general election.
Origin and History
The system was championed by Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards and officially implemented in 1975.
Prior to this, Louisiana (like much of the South at the time) was dominated by the Democratic Party. The “real” election happened in the Democratic primary, leaving the general election as a mere formality. Edwards pushed for the “open primary” to consolidate the process and reduce the cost and duration of campaigning.
Etymology: Why “Jungle”?
While “nonpartisan blanket primary” is the formal technical name, “jungle primary” became the popular shorthand for several reasons:
The “Survival of the Fittest” Mentality: Because candidates from the same party must compete against one another alongside the opposition, the political environment is seen as more chaotic and ruthless than a traditional primary.
Political Darwinism: The term implies a “law of the jungle” where party loyalty is secondary to individual survival. It was likely coined by political consultants or journalists to describe the unpredictable nature of having multiple Democrats and Republicans cannibalizing each other’s vote shares on a single ballot.
How It Works
In a jungle primary:
Universal Ballot: All candidates are listed together.
Majority Rule: If a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, they are elected outright (in Louisiana’s specific version).
The Runoff: If no one hits 50%, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party. This can result in two Republicans or two Democrats facing off in the final round.
Current Usage
While Louisiana is the most famous practitioner, other states have adopted similar “Top-Two” systems, including Washington (2008) and California (2010). However, political scientists often distinguish between Louisiana’s unique “majority-win” system and the “Top-Two” systems used elsewhere.
Confidence Level: High
Sources:
Louisiana Secretary of State - Types of Elections
Ballotpedia - Nonpartisan Blanket Primary
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) - State Primary Election Types
Then:
Is it racist?
Summary
Whether the term “jungle primary” is considered racist is a subject of ongoing debate. While it was not originally coined as an explicit racial slur—intended instead to describe a chaotic, “survival of the fittest” political environment—many modern linguists, journalists, and politicians now view it as racially insensitive or problematic due to the historical use of the word “jungle” as a pejorative trope.
The Argument for Racial Insensitivity
The primary concern stems from the historical context of the word “jungle.” In Western history, “the jungle” has often been used as a colonialist metaphor to describe non-Western regions as “savage,” “uncivilized,” or “lawless.”
Historical Trope: Critics argue that using the word “jungle” to describe a political system—especially in a state like Louisiana with a deep history of racial tension—unconsciously invokes stereotypes of “savagery” versus “civilization.”
Contextual Associations: Because the term suggests a lack of order or a return to a “primitive” state, many advocacy groups argue it carries a coded bias that is unnecessary in professional political discourse.
The Argument for Political Metaphor
Those who defend the term or view it as neutral argue that it is a purely Darwinian metaphor.
Political Darwinism: In this view, the “jungle” refers to the “law of the jungle,” where there are no party protections, and candidates must fight everyone else to survive.
Original Intent: When it gained popularity in the 1970s, it was used by political consultants to describe the unpredictable nature of the ballot, where traditional party lines vanished.
The Shift in Modern Usage
In recent years, there has been a significant move away from the term in professional and academic circles:
Media Style Guides: Many major news organizations, including the Associated Press (AP) and NPR, have issued guidance to avoid the term “jungle primary.” They recommend using more descriptive, technical terms like “nonpartisan blanket primary” or “top-two primary.”
Political Neutrality: Election officials generally prefer “open primary” or “qualifying election” to ensure the language used is formal and does not carry unintended connotations.
Conclusion
While you will still hear the term used frequently by political pundits, it is increasingly seen as an outdated and insensitive colloquialism. Using the technical name for the system is generally considered the more professional and inclusive approach.
Confidence Level: High
Sources:
Associated Press Stylebook - Election Terms
NPR - Why We Are Moving Away From ‘Jungle Primary’
The Washington Post - The History of the ‘Jungle Primary’