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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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…
doesn’t that apply to elections where Dems out spend the opponents too
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.
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.
She was done dirty. Her own party played nasty tricks to keep her from winning.
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.
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.
I’m a California constituent, and the idea of Adam Schiff representing me over Katie Porter makes me physically ill.
Do they? Or does spending millions of dollars campaigning simply effectively manipulate?
The media is a powerful tool, controlled basically exclusively by money.
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.
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.
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.
How did that quote go? Something like “never believe that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”
Just ignore all the active measures across red country trying to effectively make it illegal for anyone who doesn’t vote red.
I love Katie, but she fights the power and the power controls everything
