A provocative California governor campaign advert featuring two women and a Pride flag has triggered criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates, Democrats and conservatives alike, raising fresh questions about how far political advertising should go for attention.

Essential Takeaways

  • The advert: Two women appear to flirt before revealing that they’re filling out a ballot for Steve Hilton.
  • The punchline: A suggestive exchange ends with the phrase “Just try it!”, which critics say turns lesbian intimacy into a gimmick.
  • LGBTQ+ response: Equality California called the campaign’s approach exploitative and demeaning.
  • Conservative reaction: Some right-wing figures also condemned the advert as inappropriate, though their objections focused on different concerns.
  • Political context: Hilton is trailing Democrat Xavier Becerra in a state where Republicans face a steep electoral challenge.

A campaign advert built for the reaction

The advert opens with an unmistakably staged scene: two women sit together on a bed beneath a Pride flag, while swelling music gives the moment the glossy feel of a romantic commercial.

One woman appears anxious. The other reassures her, promising to do “all the work”. Their hands meet, the tension rises and the exchange seems designed to suggest something intimate. Then the reveal lands: they’re completing a ballot for Hilton.

The final joke is even more pointed. After one woman says, “Now lick it,” the camera cuts to an envelope ready to be posted, followed by oversized text urging viewers to “Just try it!” According to the Guardian, the campaign has faced criticism for using sexual suggestion as its central political hook. [3]

LGBTQ+ advocates say the joke goes too far

For LGBTQ+ campaigners, the problem isn't simply that the advert is cheeky. It's that the joke depends on presenting lesbian desire as a spectacle before switching it into a voting message.

Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director at Equality California, described the advert as an attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy for political attention. He argued that it repeated familiar media stereotypes that reduce lesbian and bisexual women to entertainment rather than portraying them as complete people.

That criticism has also been reported by the Los Angeles Blade, which highlighted concerns that the campaign uses queer imagery without offering meaningful engagement with queer voters or their priorities. [5] It’s a familiar political-advertising tension: representation can look progressive on the surface while still feeling shallow or opportunistic.

Conservatives aren't laughing either

The backlash hasn't come only from the left. Several conservative voices have also objected, although their arguments centre on taste, family values and perceived cultural influence rather than LGBTQ+ dignity.

Pastor Jack Hibbs called the advert distasteful and raised concerns about its portrayal of same-sex attraction among younger people. Republican attorney general candidate Michael Gates similarly argued that the campaign weakened the idea of a protected relationship between parents and children.

That response has its own awkward wrinkle. The women shown in the advert appear to be adults, not children, making some of the language around minors difficult to square with what is actually on screen. The Los Angeles Times reported that the commercial drew criticism from political allies on the right as well as opponents on the left. [4]

Why provocative political advertising keeps appearing

The strategy is easy to understand, even if the execution is divisive. A conventional policy advert might disappear into a crowded campaign feed, while a sexually suggestive clip can prompt headlines, reposts and furious commentary within hours.

For a candidate struggling to break through in a heavily Democratic state, that attention may look valuable. Reports have placed Hilton well behind Becerra, with polling cited in the coverage showing the Democratic candidate holding a substantial lead. The advert therefore arrives not as a quiet policy intervention, but as a loud attempt to change the conversation.

Still, attention isn't the same as support. As LGBTQ Nation noted, the campaign's provocative approach has been treated as bizarre by critics across the political spectrum, suggesting that the stunt may have united opponents more effectively than it has persuaded undecided voters. [2]

A risky gamble with a narrow payoff

Political humour works best when the audience understands the joke and likes the person making it. Here, the campaign appears to be asking viewers to enjoy a deliberately misleading sexual setup before accepting the ballot reveal. That may amuse some voters, but it can also leave others feeling manipulated.

The advert's broader risk is that it turns a community symbol, the Pride flag, into visual shorthand for shock value. Campaigns can use irony and satire successfully, but the line between playful and exploitative becomes particularly thin when the people being represented say they feel reduced to a punchline.

Coverage from the Guardian and the Los Angeles Times suggests that the controversy has travelled well beyond the advert's intended audience, with criticism coming from both ideological camps. [3], [4] For Hilton, that may be the point. The question is whether voters remember the candidate's name, or simply the uncomfortable joke.

The commercial has certainly made itself hard to ignore. Whether that translates into votes is another matter entirely.

A viral moment can win attention, but it can't substitute for a convincing reason to vote.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: