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.