Katie Porter's star dims in failed US Senate bid, leaving the Californian facing an uncertain future
U.S. Rep. Katie Porter became a social media celebrity by brandishing a white board at congressional hearings to dissect CEOs and break down complex figures into assaults on corporate greed, a signature image that propelled the Democrat’s U.S. Senate candidacy in California.
The progressive favorite known for spotlighting her soccer mom, minivan-driving home life was trounced in Tuesday’s primary election to fill the seat once held by the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, finishing far behind Republican Steve Garvey and fellow Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.
Porter didn’t go down quietly. She immediately pointed a finger at “billionaires spending millions to rig this election.” That claim resulted in a brutal social media backlash from many who were happy to depict the congresswoman as a graceless loser.
Perhaps chastened by the criticism, Porter later clarified her initial statement to say she didn’t believe the California vote count or election process had been compromised, but she didn’t recant her earlier remarks. Rigged, she said in a follow-up, “means manipulated by dishonest means.”
Stop booing her, she's right!
It's the use of "rigged" that throws me. I agree money in politics is bad, and adds improper influence and incentive into the whole thing. That is not the same context that we have widely seen "rigged" used in the last 8 years. The term brings to mind GOP lies about election integrity, and bogus claims of fraud.
If this was just someone I was talking to I would brush the statement off as bad word choice, and move on if there was nothing else. With it being a statement after an election loss from someone with political experience I struggle to let it slide. Word choice and presenting ideas/policy is a major part of the job she is running for, and I think such poor word choice in a statement she had every opportunity to proofread and consider is worthy of some criticism. Doesn't make her an election denier, or anything of the sort, but it does warrant a little slap on the wrist from the public.
Overall she's right, but there were many better ways to say it.
The fuck else do you call it?
Her Democratic opponent spent millions in Democratuc donations on the Republican opponent to stop her.
Fuck him, fuck California and fuck the Democrats.
Fuck the Democrats entirely.
I'm not paying Democrats to pay for Republicans to be competitive.
In a normal primary Schiff would be running against Porter straight up, but California has a top two system. It was always obvious that a Democrat was going to win the seat so he had to beat her now to seal the win. I don’t fault him for his tactics, he didn’t do anything to harm Porter’s future electability but her comments made her sound entitled, which might actually hurt them. The amount of money spent is a real problem but so is the low voter turnout, around 30%. Republicans did a better job getting to the polls and Porter didn’t run a strong race.
Just like how it was obvious Trump wasn't gonna win in 2016?
Making the voice of an opponent louder just because you don't want to go up against one of your own team is very disappointing. Sure, maybe it worked out this time, but it also means the republicans will have a larger base next election. How often can this game be played?
Not really the same thing. Biden beat Trump in California by 30 points in 2020. Hilary did the same in 2016. Not a chance Garvey wins in a national election. He only did as well as he did in the primary because we had something like 25% voter turnout.
Even so, that doesn't defeat the rest of my argument
“Rigged” is a loaded word these days and it was careless of her to use it. She could’ve just said billionaires are gaming the system or some other term that gets her point across. She won twice in Orange County of all places even with district moved, but she ran a poor race. I saw no Porter signs and no one stopped by campaign for her, unlike her house campaigns.
No! How dare she accurately describe the problem with American democracy!!
Okay, I'm not arguing that either of you are wrong but if we're going to start claiming that money influencing elections makes them rigged then doesn't that apply to elections where Dems out spend the opponents too?
Obviously money plays a huge role, IIRC the bigger spenders have won the presidency 8/10 times recently and Biden apparently has a huge lead in the bank right now which gives hope despite the polls...
Yes. Yes it does. The idea that just because a democrat is doing the spending means it can’t be wrong is pretty silly.
Dems have a pretty lousy track record here, I’m still pretty salty about the DNC doing Bernie Sanders so dirty.
The 2016
Hillary coronationprimaries were such a joke.I agree with your point about spending, but you have to remember that Bernie technically benefited from the shenanigans the DNC pulled. The people who should be upset are all the more centrist potential candidates who got squeezed out, Bernie's campaign was able to absorb and represent the entire "never-Clinton" constituency.
Nah, dog, you don’t get to change history.
I actually find this a very plausible conspiracy theory, based on how events occurred. Clinton was in a heated primary with Obama, and faltering. She graciously stepped back without fuss, was made Secretary of State, and was laser-focused by the r’s for 8 years trying to pin a scandal on her. When Obama left, Biden declined to run. All of this suggests a deal made for after the Obama presidency, and the r’s hearing about it (notice she was the single target after him, they never attacked Biden).
I would posit that some deal maker traded her backing away cleanly for promised delegates and a clear shot after Obama. I don’t know the background structure of the d’s party, so I have no idea who it would be.
Dude, she literally stayed in after the writing was on the wall, arguing that Obama might die before the general.
Her supporters started an organization called PUMA, which was short for Party Unity My Ass, though when they registered it as a corporation, they changed it to People United Means Action and have since pretended that it meant that from the start.
There's been few less gracious primary losers in either major party.
There's also the fact the Bernie is technically an independent. He mostly caucuses with the Dems, but he's not in the party. It does make some sense that they'd want one of their own to represent the party on the ticket.
I didn't say there weren't any shenanigans from the Clinton campaign and the DNC, but Bernie was not "done dirty" by it.
She was done dirty. Her own party played nasty tricks to keep her from winning.
Nasty tricks to keep a populist candidate who isn't a fan of the current capitalist system from winning? Well that certainly sounds familiar.
DNC is gonna keep doing the same thing they always have. They don’t represent democrat voters nor do they have any accountability to anyone.
This is true for both parties. They could come in to everyone's home and shit on our kitchen tables and they'd still get elected because everyone is too afraid to vote for anything else but these two shitty parties.
Those 2 parties are the only ones that can possibly win in a first past the post vote with 2 major parties. Third parties by definition tank the side they are most like when they start to get real traction long before they can actually win elections. If you don't like it voting third party isn't a fix you actually have to fix how the electoral system works.
Sure, just keep voting for the guy shitting on your table and arguing about his opponent because his steaming log of shit stank a little bit more. You're definitely making the right call and it should only take 50 or 60 more elections before things start turning around for us.
Trump doesn't suck a bit more than Biden. He's a monster whose plans for this country and the world will lead to millions of deaths and the damage he will do will last for generations. Understand what your actual options are. Nothing you can do will logically reform the electoral system in 6 months but we can stop our country from going entirely to crap.
The only reason why Trump is even a contender is because of these two shitty parties and the Democratic leadership backing some of the worst candidates in existence. Every election is going to have people claiming the opponent "will lead to millions of deaths and destruction" because nothing is going to change which is why we had to vote against him in 2016, again in 2020, and now again in 2024. Even after he dies there will be another Trump popping out of the woodwork.
By continuing to support these two parties, you're just ensuring this will continue until the sun burns out. Neither party has any reason to improve things because they'll get your vote regardless of how awful they become. Even aiding in genocide isn't enough to alter your decision.
Trump is a threat because an overwhelming majority of Republicans are willing to vote for a monster. Assigning blame for a full 45% of the population for the Democrats not running someone more to your liking is completely crazy. You call Biden one of the worst candidates in existence but the American people voted for him for Vice President of the United States twice and for President once already.
The states had the ability to elect someone else for this round if they were really so against him. Spoiler alert they aren't going to. In fact of the states and territories that have held a primary the only one which awarded votes to anyone other than Biden was American Samoa which... doesn't actually get to vote in the presidential election. The truth is anyone on team blue would by now be hated by our divided country. Trump and co have done NOTHING but lie since they lost. A Democrat moderate enough to win by definition will be disliked by nearly 100% of the right leaning folks and at least 10–20% of the most progressive if he hews close enough to the middle to actually have a chance to win. 37% is the new normal.
If you recall, in 2016, this guy lost to Clinton in the primaries, who was then defeated by Trump. He won in 2020 because people wanted to oust Trump. Both him and Clinton are both completely unappealing candidates to the populace but darlings to the party, which is how they got the support and backing to win the primaries.
And why do you think that is? Is it because he's the very best person to lead out of 330 million or is it because he has the party leaders in his pocket with the added bonus of the incumbent advantage? I haven't even been able to vote in the primaries in my state but the race is already over since enough states had theirs already.
Are you more concerned with winning elections or putting a good leader in office? It sounds like the former.
Biden was dealing with the death of his son from cancer in the season leading up to the primaries and didn't compete in 2016. Your assertion that Trump > Clinton > Biden falls on its face. The only time Biden ever went head to head with Trump he won. Primary season is over and with an incumbent you and I pretty much knew it was over before it started. Third parties can't win and for practical purposes parties are unlikely to change horses with an incumbent and actually win elections. Yes winning elections vs allowing the other side to elect a genocidal fascist is an overriding concern because of course it is. This go round was always going to be Trump v Biden v2. If we go with Biden we get slow change and investment in America. If we go with Trump he gets 4 years to try to destroy democracy and our country at best crashes as he guts the government in a way that takes us 10 years to recover from while millions of Taiwanese and Ukrainians die. At worst we fight a civil war to restore democracy like Spain too.
If you want to really reform the way we do elections you can't do it by bitching on lemmy. The most achievable changes are ranked choice voting in primaries and general in the states. That is something the states can legally do. The next most achievable is getting rid of the filibuster in the senate followed by expanding the supreme court. Even though this really only requires a simple majority it probably practically requires 55 in the senate.
We can start on these reforms that Republicans oppose vehemently by voting for Biden in the coming election and democrats down ballot while pushing for these reforms at home. In my state—Washington—we have an initiative process. Maybe they do in your state too.
Reminds me of 2016 and we're all aware of how that turned out.
What tricks? I genuinely haven't heard.
Schiff spent money on ads on Fox News to boost the Republican in the race so he'd be #2 instead of Porter. He spent more money boosting him than the Republican himself did.
Adam Schiff is so fucking slimey. I do not want that man to represent me. He spent millions to boost a republican so that he would not have to run against Katie Porter. It reminds me of Hillary's superdelegates. The party is broken, the mega rich are pretending to let us have a say and then pretending to fight against the Republicans instead of solving problems.
I like what Adam Schiff did previously for the country, but I did not like the tactics he did for this election against Porter. Yah, I get that it's politics. But if he needed to boost a Republican in order to not go against another Democrat in the fall, then maybe he's not the best person to represent California.
Now, there's a chance Steve Garvey could win the Senate seat in November. It's a very, very small chance, but it's not zero. Why take that chance when it's so important?
I hope Katie Porter does not go away. She's exactly what this country needs. The only thing I didn't like is that her campaign pretty much copied Schiff's after he did this. She's must've known it was hurting her too much.
Well said. It was very selfish of Schiff. Schiff vs Porter in November would've been a win win. Boosting a crazy Republican is an awful decision and is a tactic that's already come back to bite us.
Turning out a bunch of Democrats to vote would have helped down ballot too.
She was up against BIG pac money and couldn't battle that demon (literally).
I'm referring to a D vs. D general election having benefits on D vs. R downballot races. Big PAC money didn't want to risk someone winning who would threaten their personal finances if the only cost was potentially electing more Republicans.
Porter responding to blunt dirty tactics is very different from her opponent initiating dirty tactics. Progressives don't benefit from unilaterally disarming. The motivation and cause is very different.
I’m a California constituent, and the idea of Adam Schiff representing me over Katie Porter makes me physically ill.
And thousands of others prefer it, apparently.
Do they? Or does spending millions of dollars campaigning simply effectively manipulate?
The media is a powerful tool, controlled basically exclusively by money.
How do you define manipulate VS convince?
Spreading lies vs the truth?
Just a guess.
Were there any lies spread in this case then?
You asked how I'd define it so I did.
In the context of someone being accused of manipulation to win an election. If they lied it could be, if not maybe they just had a better message.
I'd be careful of this "I am immune to propaganda" line of thinking.
You're basically accusing everyone who didn't vote the way you wanted of being brainwashed fools, and that's how the progressive bloc spectacularly failed to capture the black vote in 2016 and 2020.
If your line of thinking forgets that the other person is a person who is actively making decisions, and who's agency is not changed for deciding differently than you did, you're wrong.
That's how we get white progressives insisting that gun toting Redcaps will totally join the progressive cause if the gays and the POC and the women would all just shut up and stop talking about identity politics.
You’re reading a lot into things I did not say.
An appeal to popularity without a critical eye on the impact of massive media spending is far more dangerous than what you’re accusing me of.
It's what he does.
I liked both of them for different reasons. Yes I wanted Porter to win because I believed in her convictions to progressive policy, but if you watched the January 6th hearings, Schiff was fucking amazing.
I was a huge fan before and after the hearings. He was great. I am far, far, less of a fan after seeing this cynical and slimy campaign.
Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean it's a good reliable clock.
I think that's a cute phrase but I don't accept its application here. For example, one could say Porter's viral whiteboards was a broken-clock. Her campaign strategy just wasn't very effective. Even I as a supporter barely heard a blip from her that just last month I had to Google what's going on. Her debate performance wasn't that great either.
I'd rather they both be in Congress from different positions.
Now, the vaccuum left by Porter as the article points out jeopordizes our congressional prospects further.
Pettily downvote all you want.
Her campaign was outspent by a lot because Schiff was backed by big money pac. And he did it in a scummy way.
I stand behind my usage of the broken clock adage.
What "big money pac" are you referring to? I'm looking at the data for both Porter and Schiff and they both received PAC money..
Schiff still out-raised Porter in individual campaign contributions — both big, and small.
Political Action Committees aren't really a problem. SuperPACs are.
By the way...
I don't understand how this is allowed. Why are they being allowed to manipulate ballots to push someone out? Paying to prop up a dummy candidate to manipulate ballots is extremely corrupt to me, unless I'm missing something.
Schiff’s ads were attack ads on Garvey. Calling Garvey the MAGA conservative who votes for Trump and is dangerous for California. The ads implied that Garvey was a serious threat in the race. Garvey is famous in California for playing first base for the LA Dodgers and San Diego Padres in the 80s and 90s, but his campaign was bootstrapped so the schiff attack ads helped.
I love Katie, but she fights the power and the power controls everything
Katie, I'm going to give you the same advice that Jen Barkley gave to Leslie.
We need people like you. Do not give up. If you run for President in 2028, I will volunteer!
I'm sorry she lost. People like her, Rachel Bitecofer, AOC must be the future of the party.
I'm not even from there, and I'd want to vote for this woman and for AOC.
I feel like it would be good to have more women in power in general, like Jacinda Arden, Yulia Tymoshenko, Sanna Marin. I was super hoping for Magdalena Andersson for prime minister, but we got Ulf Kristersson as CEO instead...
:/
It was only a matter of time after she embarrassed the banks.
Progressive candidates do not thrive in an open democracy.
Wait, what? Yes they do? What "open democracy" are you referring to?
It sounds edgy enough and it's defeatist, so it's going to be upvoted.
Just like in an open democracy...
Best way to describe the state of politcal Lemmy comments at the moment.
My 2¢ - she just didn’t do a good job of getting her name out there with many Californians. Her name recognition is big with the wonks and the people in her district, but the people that bested her were doing a better job of getting their names out there. She’s a better candidate, but she didn’t run as good of a campaign.
Ads cost big money, and if your opponent is well-funded by super-rich pacs ... well, you lose.
The money is the issue, and the powerful have most of it.
Fair point.
The lack of press is what stood out to me the most. But if I think about it for a sec, Schiff managed Trump’s impeachment, he was on the Jan 6 committee, etc. So when the press wants to talk to a democrat about Trump’s crimes, they often knock on his door. He is a talking head that people pulled anytime Trump’s name came up - which happens all the damn time.
Porter not only had to run the ads and buy the mailers, but she needed a way to compete with the organic press that Schiff was going to get. And she wasn’t able to pull that off.
Most of the press is owned by a handful of companies that are also mega donors. It's all an incestuous relationship.
True, but he was also getting interviewed and name dropped by a lot of not for profit journalism here because of the panels and inquiries he had lead.
At the end of the day, people reporting on the panels and inquiries are going to want to talk to the people associated with them. Not the junior people in Congress who are on the sidelines.
She hadn’t been in Congress for even a year before people started to coordinate impeachment proceedings on Trump. She was never going to be on those panels. She was still getting up to speed about the gig.
Move to WI Run for Senate.
Her kind of no nonsense politics really sells in the Midwest.
Damn. I loved her white board slapdowns.
She was AWESOME.
She had my vote mar 5th
We don't want to solve these problems.
Most people think the disparity in wealth should grow, so that's what it does.
I have no hope for civilization and just look out for myself and those close to me, now.
As I tell my kids. There’s no reason to like the game, and spend your entire lives doing what you can to change it for the better, but while you’re doing that, and to change the game, you’re going to have to play it as best you can.
We’re not going to change to a utopia overnight, it has to be one little change at a time and people have to work to get to the place to make those changes first.
I'm not sure most people think that. But the ones with money and power do.
Most people definitely think that.
It's how history continues to repeat itself.
Most people think the game can't change or shouldn't be changed. They're a much bigger issue than the people trying to get by who think the game can be changed.
Nah. We can pick the game, but we cannot change the rules.
I'd rather play a different game than the one I've been playing for the past 10+ years with no satisfactory results.
Can't keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
No, the rules are (mostly) open to change, but you don't get to pick a new game. Physics is what it is, the immutable ground rules of the game, and it's the only game in town. Everything above that, the social reality that is most of what people think about and engage with, can be changed, but you do have to invest a lot of energy to shift the inertia of the existing system.
Of course you can change the rules. Or even better you can change the game.
Rule 1 of life ... never play somebody else's game by somebody else's rules 'cause you'll lose every time.
Fixed it for you.
If they did, the rich would be running influence campaigns on it rather than making up other bullshit to distract people.
How history continues to repeat itself? Really? Guess I'll just put my magic glowey rock that speaks messages in an as of yet to be invented script that will never exist and ride off into the sun set on my bronze age chariot to defend my home from the sea peoples!
This is such a myopic view of history it borders on "measels aren't so bad! There hasn't been a major death from it in decades! That's why I don't vax!"
All I know is I received so many daily texts and emails from her campaign begging for money that it seriously turned me off, and I don't even live in CA.
I will never forgive California for this. Your whole state sucks.
?? Why?
CA's goofy primary system lumps GOP and Dem candidates all together. Top two go to November ballet. Adam Schiff focused his advertising on the GOP guy, totally ignoring Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Since Adam Schiff had a huge budget this meant LOTS of advertising for the GOP guy. Schiff and GOP guy were top two. GOP has no chance to win in November
It's a really good primary system imo. It's a good way for us to break out of party focused politics. Unpopular parties won't automatically get a place on the ballot.
They'll just be promoted by their opponents to avoid having to compete against someone who could win.
That does seem to be the outcome here, good point.
Ranked choice would have Schiff vs Porter in the fall. Lot of people complaining about billionaires but the biggest and most concerning factor is this election was the worst voter turnout in California history.
It's not what it should be, but in the standard single party primaries it would still be Schiff winning vs. Republican guy whose name isn't worth learning. It should just be ranked choice, but them doing an unusual thing didn't lead to a worse result than the other bad system most states use.
Thinking about it more Porter and Lee should have ignored Garvey and gone after Schiff. It was clear early on what Schiff's plan was.
My city (Oakland, CA) uses ranked choice. It takes some getting used to. There was one school board member seat that was tabulated incorrectly. Many voters don't understand it. Some candidates challenge the results in court. And we have a mayor with little political experience that inherited a fucking mess.
Being rich must feel good.
We don't want facts, we want the TRUTH damnit!