A provocative campaign ad from Republican gubernatorial nominee Steve Hilton has sparked controversy not just among Democrats but also within his own party. The ad, released after a recent debate with Democrat Xavier Becerra, features two young women on a bed discussing voting, framed against a backdrop of a Pride flag.

In the ad, titled “Just Try It, California,” one woman expresses fear about her father discovering her voting choice. The other reassures her, saying she will assist in marking the ballot for Hilton. The approach, meant to be humorous, has been met with backlash, drawing condemnation even among right-leaning commentators.

During a segment on CNN This Morning, political analyst Maria Cardona and others dissected the advertisement, calling it “baffling” and “grotesque.” They expressed disbelief that such risqué content could come from a Republican candidate.

Despite the criticism, some on the right, including Christian nationalist pastor Jack Hibbs, have defended Hilton. Hibbs claimed he received numerous negative responses about the ad but stated he would still vote for Hilton, asserting that he would not judge him based on the ad’s content.

“Yes, I’m voting for Steve Hilton. I’m not going to judge him with this stupid ad,” Hibbs asserted during a live stream. His remark highlighted the ad’s polarizing effect but also suggested a measure of loyalty to Hilton among certain voters.

Media analyst Sara Fischer noted that the unusual situation of a Republican defending a candidate despite his problematic advertisement could be viewed as a win for Hilton. “What a win! You have a Republican saying this is terrible, but I’m still voting for the guy,” she exclaimed.

However, not all conservatives were as forgiving. Michael Gates, a Republican attorney general candidate who frequently campaigns alongside Hilton, took to social media to denounce the ad. He argued that it irresponsibly exploited young women for political gain.

Initially, Hilton defended the ad, describing it as a “provocative” and “funny” piece aimed at connecting with younger voters. Yet, he quickly pivoted, releasing a statement hours later expressing regret for any distress it may have caused.

In the thick of the controversy, reality television personality Spencer Pratt praised the ad’s boldness, adding an unexpected twist to the narrative by suggesting it might resonate with youthful voters.

The debate around the ad mirrors the ongoing discourse about how political campaigns engage with contemporary social issues. Some commentators likened the ad to a similar one from 2024 that suggested wives could secretly vote for candidates without their husbands’ knowledge, framing it as a sexist move.

Tiana Lowe, contributing to the discussion, argued that despite the criticism, Hilton’s ad successfully captivated public attention. “It works because everyone is talking about it,” she stated, emphasizing the importance of visibility in modern political campaigns.

Hilton’s past performances on media platforms have also raised eyebrows. He faced charges of dishonesty during a primary debate with San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and has previously spoken on controversial topics like artificial intelligence.

As the campaign progresses, recent polling data reveals that Hilton is trailing Becerra significantly, with the Democrat leading 58% to 33%. This gap underscores the challenges facing Hilton as the election draws near.

The fallout from the ad raises important questions about the direction of Republican tactics in California and whether provocative messaging can energize or alienate potential voters.

With Hilton’s campaign navigating turbulent waters, it remains to be seen how this ad will influence voter perception as the election approaches. The intersection of politics, humor, and social issues will continue to ignite discussions among Californians.

As excitement and criticism surrounding Hilton’s candidacy grow, his ability to engage with voters through unconventional methods could be critical to his political fate. California’s electorate is watching closely as the campaign unfolds.

The implications of this ad and the reactions it inspired are likely to resonate beyond the current election cycle, inviting ongoing debate about how political messages are formulated in a rapidly changing social landscape.