[Program Note: The news of Kristi Noem's ouster broke after much of this column had already been written, so I decided to just address it all tomorrow.]

I did consider, when contemplating a headline for today, riffing on the Grease song "Beauty School Dropout," but I decided to pay homage to Neil Sedaka instead. Just in case anyone's interested....

I chose this theme because it seems it's been a week of politicians being urged to drop out of their respective races. So far, few have, but the entreaties will likely continue and continue to grow in urgency. But dropping out is indeed hard to do for any politician, since entering into politics as a candidate almost requires you to have an outsized opinion of: yourself, your importance to your party, and your ability to influence the direction of the country. Donald Trump has the biggest ego of any politician I've ever seen, but there are plenty of others whose egos are pretty outsized as well. It's the nature of the business, really.

Speaking of Trump, he really got the "Drop out now!" ball rolling this week (his actual words: "DROP OUT OF THE RACE!"), after the Texas Republican primary results were tallied on Tuesday night. His problem with the Senate race there was that he didn't know who would win, and therefore he didn't want to make an endorsement before the primary (because he hates to pick the wrong horse). So three Republicans duked it out for the nomination.

Two have emerged to advance to a runoff election, which will happen 12 weeks from this Tuesday: Ken Paxton and sitting Senator John Cornyn. Trump immediately (and bombastically) demanded that whichever candidate he doesn't bestow his endorsement upon should immediately drop out of the race altogether -- to spare the eventual candidate from having to spend three months attacking a fellow Republican (so that all that money could be used for the general election campaign instead). Trump was rumored to have explicitly demanded a pledge to do so when he talked to both men on the phone after the primary (so they could kiss up to him in hopes of getting his endorsement).

Well, today one of them publicly responded. Paxton reportedly said he's not going to drop out even if Trump endorses Cornyn and demands Paxton leave the race. Trump, when questioned about Paxton's statement, responded as expected: "Well, that's bad for him to say. That is bad for him. So maybe, maybe that leads me to go in the other direction."

This was all fairly predictable, at least to me. I wrote just yesterday:

If Trump endorses Cornyn, will Paxton gracefully drop out of the race? That's hard to imagine, since Paxton and the word "gracefully" are generally never used in the same sentence at all. Paxton is a maverick, and delights in doing exactly what he feels like doing, so even with Trump set against him, it's hard to see him being convinced to drop his campaign for the good of the party.

It's now looking more and more likely that Trump will endorse Cornyn -- who did much better than expected Tuesday night (the polls had all shown Paxton with a comfortable lead) -- so it'll be interesting to see how the MAGA universe reacts. There are plenty of Trump followers who absolutely loathe Cornyn, but then again if their Dear Leader is telling them to vote for him that's a pretty powerful thing to fight against. Let's hope the sparks keep flying for the full 12-week period, that's all I can say.

More dropout-urging news from the Republican side broke today as well. Here's the story:

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Thursday called on Rep. Tony Gonzales to drop his reelection campaign after the Texas Republican admitted he had an affair with a staffer.

In a joint statement with other top House Republicans, Johnson said Gonzales is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee and that they've encouraged him to address the scandal with his colleagues and his constituents.

"In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for re-election," Johnson said in the statement with Reps. Steve Scalise (La.), Tom Emmer (Minn.) and Lisa McClain (Mich.).

Johnson's decision to pull support from Gonzales was probably made easier by the fact that Gonzales won fewer votes than his main opponent, Brandon Herrera, in Tuesday's primary election in Texas. Gonzales and Herrera advanced to a runoff election that will take place in May.

After denying it for months, Gonzales admitted in a radio interview Wednesday he'd had a sexual relationship with a staffer in 2024, which is against House rules. Last year, the aide set herself on fire and died following what her husband called a depressive "spiral" triggered by his discovery of the affair with Gonzales. Text messages showed Gonzales asked for "a sexy pic" and made other sexual advances late at night in 2024.

"I made a mistake, and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions," Gonzales told conservative broadcaster Joe Pags. "Since then, I've reconciled with my wife, Angel. I've asked God to forgive me, which he has. And my faith is as strong as ever."

Nice of him to speak for God, there. Of course, the real right thing to do at this point would be for Gonzales to immediately resign his seat, but that apparently was a bridge too far for Johnson (who only has a razor-thin majority in the House, and thus doesn't want any vacancy in any GOP seat at all).

No word yet on how Gonzales will react to the call for him to exit the race. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he ignored it and vowed to continue his campaign.

But the "Drop out now!" chorus isn't limited to one side of the aisle. Here in California, Democrats are facing a possible apocalyptic scenario -- one that gets more and more plausible as time goes on. California voters will be choosing a new governor this year, but there is about a 1-in-4 chance (currently, according a website tracking the possibility) that we could be faced with two Republicans on the general election ballot, and no Democrats -- on a ballot that does not allow write-in votes.

I've pointed this out previously, because it is a huge weakness in the current "top-two jungle primary" system in California. I have even advocated for my state to adopt the election system that Alaska now uses: a top four primary, and then instant-runoff voting for the general election. But it's the system we've got for this year -- so that whole discussion can happen later (and it definitely will, if we wind up with a Republican governor, that's for sure).

Anyway, the issue came to the fore this week because tomorrow is the deadline for filing candidacies for the 2026 election cycle in the state. It is also the deadline for dropping out of the race (if a candidate doesn't withdraw their candidacy filing by tomorrow, he or she will appear on the ballot even if they drop out later in the race).

So Rusty Hicks, the chair of the state Democratic Party, sent out a rather extraordinary open letter this week. He doesn't name names, but in it he urges Democratic candidates for governor to drop out if they don't really have a viable chance of winning one of the top two spots in the primary.

From the text of this letter (emphasis in original):

California Democrats chose not to endorse a candidate for Governor at our recent State Convention and concerns around the impact of a crowded candidate field persist.

Despite the ongoing chatter, the likelihood of two Republicans effectively "locking out" California Democrats from the contest for Governor in the General Election is relatively low. However, while it is implausible, it is not impossible and I know we are collectively committed to taking the steps required to avoid that possibility.

Therefore, with the filing deadline approaching this Friday, March 6th, and the Primary Election quickly following, it is imperative that every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign.

I know all too well the sacrifices you have made in stepping forward to serve and have seen how much you have poured into your respective campaigns. Through your hard work and dedication, you have earned the support of volunteers, donors, endorsers and they have lent their reputations and resources to propel your campaign forward. As a result, I recognize my suggestions are hard for many to contemplate and may be even viewed as overly harsh by some.

Hicks then goes on to list his reasons for making this call. The letter ends with:

For these reasons and following an honest assessment of your candidacy and campaign, I ask the following:

• If you do not have a viable path to make it to the General Election, do not file to place your name on the ballot for the Primary Election.
• If you decide to file, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate on or before April 15th if your campaign cannot show meaningful progress towards winning the Primary Election in the coming weeks.

The scenarios I have described are unlikely, but they are, in fact, possible. Therefore, we all have a duty to act in a responsible manner with the opportunities and support we have earned. I believe it starts with a candid assessment of the political landscape around you, an honest reflection on your viability to win the race, and the courage to make a tough choice. I know you are committed to doing what's required in this historic moment. I certainly know I am and California Democrats are too.

It should not exactly surprise anyone, but this letter was not greeted by a stampede of candidates actually dropping out of the race.

The big problem for political machinations right now is that most California voters haven't paid the slightest attention to the race yet. California's primary is at the start of June, and only one candidate from either party is up on the television airwaves so far (Tom Steyer, who is self-financing his own campaign and thus has money to burn at such an early phase of the race). When the ad blitz begins, then maybe the voters will begin to form solid opinions, but that just hasn't happened yet.

Nine Democrats began the run for the governor's office (it's an open race in both parties, since Gavin Newsom is term-limited out of office this year). So far, only three of them can be considered anywhere near "frontrunner" status. But since most voters haven't tuned in, this may not mean much. There are two big Republican candidates also running.

The most recent poll shows the two Republicans in first and third place. But the vote is incredibly disbursed -- the top candidate (Steve Hilton, a Republican) is only pulling in 14 percent of the vote. The other Republican, Chad Bianco, is pulling in 12 percent. The Democrats, in descending order are: Katie Porter (13 percent), Eric Swalwell (11), Tom Steyer (10), Xavier Becerra (5), Antonio Villaraigosa (5), Betty Yee (5), Matt Mahan (3), Tony Thurmond (2), and Ian Calderon (1).

But back to that non-stampede. Here's how a few candidates initially reacted:

The response from trailing candidates was swift. State schools superintendent Tony Thurmond, who is Black, said the party is "essentially telling every candidate of color... to drop out." He vowed to stay in the race.

. . .

Another candidate, former state controller Betty Yee, a daughter of Chinese immigrant parents, didn't mention Hicks' statement in an announcement that she would be filing paperwork Tuesday to officially set her candidacy in motion. The campaign of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, another Democrat in the race, said "voters choose the next governor, not political gatekeepers."

Villaraigosa responded by calling on Becerra to drop out, who returned the favor and called on Villaraigosa to drop out (both have been political rivals for a while).

One Democrat actually did heed the call, however:

At least one Democrat is bowing out: Former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon withdrew from the race Thursday and endorsed Bay Area U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.

"Ultimately, every candidate has to make a clear-eyed assessment about whether they can assemble the resources necessary to run a competitive statewide campaign," Calderon said in a statement. "In a race of this scale, a message only matters if you have the resources to ensure Californians can actually see and hear it."

The Democratic Party's problem is that even if the Democratic field winnowed itself down to just three candidates, that still might not be enough to stave off the apocalyptic scenario. The math is pretty easy to understand. Roughly 60 percent of California's voters routinely vote for Democrats. Which leaves 40 percent who routinely vote Republican. If there are five candidates in the race and none of them break away from the pack, it could mean a perfect split of having each candidate win 20 percent of the overall vote. The margin for which candidate would actually be in first and second place might be incredibly small -- which could indeed lead to having only two Republicans on the November ballot. To truly be effective, the party chair's scheme would have to include all Democratic candidates except the top two -- and that is simply not going to happen.

Even if five more Democrats drop out (which is pretty far-fetched), none of the top three are going to voluntarily end their campaigns, because each of them will be absolutely convinced that they are the one to carry the party banner into November. The only way the field could be cleared to just two candidates would be for one of the current top-three Democrats to crash and burn in the polling in a big way -- because that would mean making the case for them to get out would be a lot easier and more blatant. Absent that, we're going to have at least three strong Democrats to choose from, and two Republicans.

Because (again, with a nod to Neil Sedaka) dropping out is hard to do.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant