The fourth and final gubernatorial debate of the California primary brought a surprise.

Democrat Katie Porter openly and publicly borrowed an idea from Republican Steve Hilton: ending income taxes for those earning less than $100,000 per year.

It made Hilton look good. But it also helped Porter look magnanimous. In a gesture of generosity toward an opponent, she helped assuage concerns about her “temperament.”

Xavier Becerra, who appears to be emerging as the frontrunner in some recent polls, had a tough night. But the fact that he took a lot of attacks might, ironically, cement him in voters’ minds as the leader.

As early voting continues, the race for governor remains a lottery. The big question is whether both, or any, of the Republicans will qualify for the general election. They’ve certainly made it a better contest.

Steve Hilton: A Hilton was jovial and sharp in his attacks. He picked up an endorsement of sorts when Katie Porter acknowledged that she was borrowing his idea for tax cuts. He interrupted other candidates, which is risky, but did so effectively. His answer on housing (build outwards, not upwards) was the best anyone has given. He brings a sense of humor to the stage and makes every debate more interesting.

Katie Porter: B+ This was Porter’s best debate. Her answers were concise, yet comprehensive. She went after Becerra effectively, and often, and on a substantive basis. She also conveyed a sense of gravitas that was somehow missing in the first three debates, despite her occasionally awkward gestures and expressions. She showed a solid grasp on the issues. The only problem: it might just be too late.

Chad Bianco: B The sheriff has turned in solid performances in every debate, repeating the message that Democrats have failed and are responsible for the very problems they decry. But we haven’t seen a more constructive side to Bianco, which might have allowed him to broaden his support. As a truth-teller he is peerless. But a governor also needs to build coalitions, and he fell short of showing he could do that.

Antonio Villaraigosa: C+ We saw the former LA mayor do something different in this race, which was to attack his own party for bad policies. The problem is that he fails to offer convincing alternatives. Most of his answers are about what he did in LA, or what he once did in the state legislature, little of which was actually impressive at the time. He did show more energy than in earlier debates, but still seems out of it.

Xavier Becerra: C He took a beating. Mostly that was because, as he pointed out, he is seen as the frontrunner. But it was also because he finally had to face tough questions about the Dana Williamson scandal, and didn’t deal with them well. His policies were largely empty. He reiterated that he fought Trump, his selling point. He looks solid, physically, which might be enough to make the general election.

Matt Mahan: C- On paper, he should be running away with the race. He is failing because he lacks a clear message. He constantly attacks other candidates as if he can build himself up by bringing them down. It’s not working because it’s all he does. Hilton basically ended Mahan’s night by pointing out that San Jose has the most expensive housing in the country. Maybe Mahan is just not very good at this.

Tom Steyer: D Another shockingly poor debate from Tom Steyer. We get it: he’s a rich guy who hates rich guys. He seems to think voters are dumb enough to believe that all our problems are the fault of other rich guys, just not him. He’s trying to pull off a Bernie Sanders impersonation. He comes across poorly; can we endure a third straight governor with that gravelly voice? His money is the only reason he has a shot.

Moderators: B This was a successful debate, with little bias; good, free-flowing exchanges; and relevant questions. (Finally, someone asked a water question!) But the lightning round questions were a little weak.

Joel Pollak is opinion editor of the California Post.