Victor Davis Hanson has identified a troubling pattern, stating that the recent disappearance of James Talarico from the campaign trail was not an isolated incident. In fact, Hanson pointed to another prominent Democrat candidate who has similarly avoided public scrutiny in recent days.

The second candidate is Xavier Becerra, former Biden administration official and current gubernatorial nominee for California.

During a new discussion published on Saturday, Hanson connected the two campaigns, arguing that both men had become significantly less visible as political pressure intensified around them.

A significant update in Talarico’s case came Friday, when the Texas Democrat returned to public events after a nine-day absence attributed by his campaign to a severe flu. Before this return, however, Talarico’s whereabouts became a major issue, with President Donald Trump’s team among those publicly questioning where he had gone.

Talarico resurfaced at Austin City Limits on Friday and stated he had been seriously ill. His campaign reported that he visited urgent care, noting the illness was particularly challenging due to his Type 1 diabetes.

This explains the physical absence, but it does not resolve the political problem created by a Senate candidate vanishing from public view for over a week while speculation swirled and his campaign provided minimal information. Talarico had last campaigned in person on September 30 before missing several events. His team claimed he continued fundraising and working remotely during recovery, but the silence left opponents with an opportunity to fill the void.

Hanson’s broader point is that Democrats are increasingly willing to shield candidates from unscripted appearances that could cause more harm than good. In his discussion, Hanson recalled Becerra’s poor performance in the first California gubernatorial debate and noted that the former Health and Human Services secretary then withdrew from a subsequent debate. Hanson argued that Becerra’s campaign had little incentive to place him under public scrutiny where his record and answers would face sustained questioning.

Reports indicate that Republican candidate Steve Hilton accused Becerra of backing out of a forum with a major publication. A representative stated that Becerra had not formally committed to the event and that his schedule did not permit attendance, adding that efforts to find an alternative date were unsuccessful.

Regardless of the label given by campaigns, California voters did not receive the planned face-to-face exchange, and Becerra has yet to arrange a replacement. This situation matters in a race where voters are still comparing candidates and where live debates can expose more than polished campaign advertising.

Hanson also highlighted a stark discrepancy between public polling and internal campaign polls in California. A September UC Berkeley poll showed Becerra leading Hilton, but an internal Hilton campaign poll released this week placed Becerra at 45.7 percent, Hilton at 40.1 percent, with 14.1 percent undecided. While this internal poll does not definitively indicate a sudden toss-up in the race, its release helps explain why Hilton has been aggressively pushing the debate issue and why Hanson views Becerra’s reduced visibility as a deliberate strategy rather than an accident.

Hanson’s argument is familiar: Democrats have historically used such tactics—keeping candidates out of unpredictable settings, limiting hostile questions, and allowing friendly media or campaign advertising to carry the message. This approach worked for Joe Biden in 2020. The problem now is that voters increasingly recognize this playbook.

After returning from his absence, Talarico quickly turned criticism against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for not accepting his debate challenge. While it is fair to say every candidate seeking high office should be willing to debate and answer difficult questions publicly, that standard applies to Paxton, Talarico, and Becerra as well.

The media may debate whether a candidate “canceled,” “never committed,” or simply had a scheduling conflict. Voters are entitled to look past the spin and ask a simpler question: Who is actually showing up?

Hanson believes that answer has become a serious liability for more than one Democratic campaign.