[Program Note: I do realize that there is a much bigger story happening today, but we won't know until much later whether Trump is going to follow through on his threats against Iran's civilian infrastructure or not, so I am going to focus on a completely unrelated issue while we all wait to see what will happen next in Trump's war of choice.]

The race to see who will be California's next governor has had some big news break over the past few days, and at least one of these developments may prove to be a real earthquake (that's my mandatory "California earthquake" reference -- I thought I'd get it out of the way right here at the start).

The big shakeup comes on the Republican side of the race. To review the full landscape of this race (for those of you who haven't been paying attention), there are two big GOP candidates in the race, three big Democratic candidates, and a handful of others. The primary election will happen at the very start of June, meaning it is now less than two months away. California's primary system will produce only two candidates from all of those running (no matter what their party affiliation is), and no write-in candidates are allowed on the general election ballot, so our next governor will be one or the other of the two who emerge from the primary. Up until now, the polling has been very close but also very low -- all five of the leading candidates have been regularly posting double-digit numbers in the polls, but none has really broken even the 20 percent mark -- so it is still very much a very wide-open race. And the fear (for Democrats) is that with three viable candidates on their side (and a smattering of minor candidates as well) and only two on the GOP side, with an electorate that is roughly 60-40 Democratic, we could end up with the two Republicans both winning and shutting out any Democratic candidate from the general election. That's the race in a nutshell.

Up until this week, the two Republican candidates, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, have been polling in the high teens, and regularly (but not universally) outpolling all the Democrats (but only by a sliver). This is what has led to all the Democratic fears of being locked out. But this week, Donald Trump took a break from writing profane threats against civilization and gave his endorsement to Hilton.

This is big. With Trump's political weight behind him, Hilton should now see a bump in the polls -- at the expense of Bianco. Which is precisely what Democrats want to see happen. If Hilton rises and Bianco fades, it makes the path a lot easier for a Democrat to place in the top two.

As mentioned, the electorate in the Golden State is roughly 60-40. And with the way people are feeling right now, it is almost inconceivable that many Democrats or even Democratic-leaning independent voters are considering throwing their support to either of the Republicans. This means that that 40 percent should be seen as a ceiling for Hilton. He almost certainly won't get much above it in the general election, and he could score well below it.

The only way both Hilton and Bianco could lock out the Democrats would be if they almost perfectly split this 40 percent in the primary election. But with a Trump endorsement, that is far less likely to happen. According to Politico, Trump was talked into throwing his support to Hilton by rightwing influencer Laura Loomer. But however it happened, Democrats are (for once) now thankful and grateful for something Donald Trump has done. Trump may not completely clear the Republican field for Hilton, but as of now Bianco's chances of making the general election ballot have to be seen as a whole lot slimmer.

There is news from the Democratic side of things as well, but because it is a three-way race it is less obvious how it will all play out. There are, as mentioned, three strong Democratic candidates in the race: Eric Swalwell, Tom Steyer, and Katie Porter. There are a number of other Democrats running, but none has even approached the polling support that these three have been consistently showing for months.

Tom Steyer is a billionaire who has never held elective office. However, he has dabbled in California politics before, so he is not a complete unknown. He has championed ballot measures here, and he also made an unsuccessful national bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. And he's got seemingly-unlimited resources. Steyer's television ads in California are in such heavy rotation that people are already tired of seeing them. And he's got the airwaves (at least those which reach my house -- this may be different in the bigger urban areas in the state, though) completely to himself so far. None of the other candidates has enough funds to run ads so early in the cycle. But there has been a notable shift in the ads, just in the past week or so. Up until now, Steyer's been running "pro-me" ads that attempt to define his own story and build support for his candidacy. But now he's gone negative, running ads against Swalwell that berate him for missing lots of votes in Congress and insinuating that he supports ICE.

Eric Swalwell is a sitting House member, and rose to national stature (and fame, among Democrats) for serving as an "impeachment manager" (or House prosecutor) in Trump's second impeachment. He is trying to ride that fame and glory to the governor's office. And he was doing a pretty good job of it, before Steyer started spending so much on advertising. He was seen as the frontrunner among Democrats, although he was really neck-and-neck with Porter. Steyer trailed behind, but he has been slowly closing that gap with his onslaught of ads.

But Politico today reported that Swalwell is being hit behind the scenes to the point where his campaign felt the need to respond:

Rep. Eric Swalwell's campaign for governor denied on Tuesday that he had ever behaved inappropriately with female staffers, countering a number of left-leaning influencers and other social media accounts that have alleged without evidence that he has a record of improper behavior.

The decision by the California Democrat's campaign to confront the claims is an unusually forceful move to rebut vague allegations that have not been vetted and published in the media or leveled by anyone claiming firsthand knowledge of the purported behavior.

"This false, outrageous rumor is being spread 27 days before an election begins by flailing opponents who have sadly teamed up with MAGA conspiracy theorists because they know Eric Swalwell is the frontrunner in this race," said Micah Beasley, a spokesperson for Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign, in a statement to Politico.

The denial comes as claims of wrongdoing have crescendoed on social media, primarily from a number of left-leaning online influencers. In public posts, these influencers say they have heard accounts from people who allege Swalwell engaged in inappropriate behavior as a member of Congress toward staff and other women. Politico hasn't independently confirmed allegations of wrongdoing against Swalwell.

In other words, these are still just rumors, but they are awfully damning rumors. So much so that they could indeed tank his chances of winning a spot on the general election ballot -- whether they are true or not. This all could hinge on whether this at some point becomes a real and verifiable claim against Swalwell or it all remains in the realm of being just ugly rumors. Currently the rumor is that it's all going to become very public very soon:

The influencers say a group of women have retained counsel and plan to speak out soon, but they claim some have been hesitant because they have signed a non-disclosure agreement.

The Swalwell campaign disputed the existence of any NDAs.

"In 13 years, no one in Eric Swalwell's Congressional office has ever been asked to sign an NDA. Ever," Beasley said in his statement. "In 13 years, not a single ethics complaint by any staff in his office or any other office has ever been lodged. Ever."

I should begin by saying that this could be survivable for Swalwell. If there never are any actual accusations made and it all remains just a dark rumor bandied about without any evidence or first-person statements at all, then it might not ever rise to being a serious impediment for Swalwell. But if such accusations are made (and are considered credible by enough voters), it could be the effective end of his candidacy.

Tom Steyer now obviously sees Eric Swalwell as his strongest Democratic opponent (because he wouldn't be running negative ads against Swalwell if he didn't). But if Swalwell is hit from a different direction (by actual accusations from believable women), then Steyer might stop running such negative ads (since they probably wouldn't even be necessary, at that point).

Which all leaves me wondering how it will all play out. Time is short -- Californians will vote in the primaries in less than two months' time. But the outcome might be rather unexpected, since if Swalwell does go down in flames, it might actually benefit the third strong Democrat in the race. So far, Katie Porter hasn't been attacked by Steyer at all. That could swiftly change, though.

If Swalwell does stumble badly in the polls, then all those voter will shift to some other candidate. Their obvious choices are Porter and Steyer. My guess (and I could easily be wrong about this, I fully admit) is that more of them would shift to Porter than Steyer. The race on the Democratic side would boil down to a head-to-head contest between the two.

That's admittedly a lot of assumptions to make, but if Trump's endorsement does severely tilt the Republican field and if Swalwell is accused of wrongdoing, then we could wind up with a race between Hilton and Porter for the general election. But at this point, everything is still completely up in the air, so we'll have to see how things play out in the coming weeks. Even so, the first part of that string of assumptions seems the best bet -- that Hilton will indeed reap a big benefit from Trump endorsing him. And that alone is enough reason for millions of California Democrats to breathe a big sigh of relief.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant