Katie Porter is a very bright woman

[Texas Flood 1338]

3 hours ago, Post Oak said:

She was stupid to run. Now she has a stupid prize 

She's not that bright. Leaves a house seat that's now vulnerable in a critical year for the House.

[Js1 83352]

5 minutes ago, Texas Flood said:

She's not that bright. Leaves a house seat that's now vulnerable in a critical year for the House.

Don’t get me wrong, I get why she did it. California senate seats don’t open up that often. You can win it and hold it for 3 or 4 terms pretty easily. Prior to this one opening up, it took Harris winning VP for the other one to open up in 2020 and before that, Boxer finally retiring to open up in 2016. Before that? 1992 for both seats. Padilla is only 50 so that one will be held by him as long as he wants it 

 

[LCHorn 2559]

Well, she should be assured of a rehabilitation admin job and then she can shop for races in ‘26 or ‘28 and won’t be limited to California.  

[Gil Bang 25651]

Biden may make her a federal judge. 

[Dbeasy 14783]

I think Democrats are getting way too bent out of shape for her using the term rigged. You can’t just usurp a word in the english language and have it mean only Trump’s bullshit. I understood she was referencing a Super Pac. Hell Super Pacs and donors are rigging lot of elections these days.

But, I guess because people are so dumb, they can’t see the difference between Super Pacs and outright lying about fake voting or vote stealing. Sigh. I’ve just convinced myself that Democrats indeed have to get ticked off at her because people are so dumb. Well, this was a nice thought journey back to the beginning. I ought to just delete this post. Nope. I’m not gonna do that. I’m posting it. 

[StassneyHorn 6440]

Just run against Padilla

[Js1 83352]

Just now, StassneyHorn said:

Just run against Padilla

She’s going to be persona non grata in CA doing that. And it’s not until 2028. 

[StassneyHorn 6440]

No she won’t

[956 Worldwide 34006]

Why on earth would California D’s want to encourage an ugly primary fight against a decent and well-liked Mexican-American senator? That makes no sense. 
 

Porter just lost. The California D electorate state-wide is closer to Schiff than her. And Schiff will be a good D senator. I really don’t get the impulse to take down good Democratic candidates that win elections. 

[StassneyHorn 6440]

No need to encourage an ugly primary. I don’t think Padilla has the statewide name recognition, simple as that. 

[henrygandorf 28824]

yeah, i remember the first time my wife voted in a ca election.  for all the down-ballot stuff she was like, "shit, i need help, both of the people are democrats." lol.

schiff is going to win 2-1 over steve and all his chest hair.

[Gil Bang 25651]

23 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, i remember the first time my wife voted in a ca election.  for all the down-ballot stuff she was like, "shit, i need help, both of the people are democrats." lol.

schiff is going to win 2-1 over steve and all his chest hair.

and illegitimate children

[henrygandorf 28824]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

and illegitimate children

he is actually the ideal republican candidate, he's just in the wrong state.  he could be a multi-term senator someplace else.

[WhatTheBuck 28613]

7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

lulz

Porter shouldn't be done. Democrats abandoning her because she did one stupid thing is the exact behavior that's left the country fucked and in danger of being turbofucked (see: Franken). Stop being myopic crybabies.

No shit.

Katie should’ve waited her turn. (That’s right, I said it.) But she had a right to take her shot. Welcome to the big league, Katie. Don’t throw a fit because you lost. That’s politics. Congratulate Schiff and give him your full endorsement. He’s more experienced than you and fully capable of doing a great job as Senator. He might be in a position to help you in the future. Don’t burn any bridges.

 

[Dutchrudder 11056]

It might be beneath her, but I would love to see her as the White House Press Secretary and use that role as a bully pulpit.  

[SydneyCarton 47471]

14 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

So I haven’t paid much attention to California politics. I didn’t even realize Schiff was running for Senate. Why has the Democratic Party there allowed these two key politicians go head to head like that? I would have thought there would have been better planning. I didn’t even realize Schiff had a shot at Senate. And Porter had a lot more room to move up in the House. 

To add context, EVERYONE knew Schiff was running. I think he’d actually already declared. But she decided to run anyway. 

[washparkhorn 9907]

A lot of gaslighting going on here. Thanks to Citizens United—elections are rigged by billionaires. And Schiff—like Feinstein—is more favored by billionaires than a reform-minded Porter who threatens their stranglehold on political power. 

Schiff propping up a Repub candidate will hurt Dem candidates in close races—as California Repubs will have a reason to go out and vote against Schiff (a man hated by trumpests) and every other Dem on a ballot in swing districts. 

Finally, reform minded Dems (who appreciated Porter’s approach to corporate malfeasance) will be less enthusiastic to vote--lowering turnout. 

Stop gaslighting. 

[berlinerbaer 670]

27 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

A lot of gaslighting going on here. Thanks to Citizens United—elections are rigged by billionaires. And Schiff—like Feinstein—is more favored by billionaires than a reform-minded Porter who threatens their stranglehold on political power. 

Schiff propping up a Repub candidate will hurt Dem candidates in close races—as California Repubs will have a reason to go out and vote against Schiff (a man hated by trumpests) and every other Dem on a ballot in swing districts. 

Finally, reform minded Dems (who appreciated Porter’s approach to corporate malfeasance) will be less enthusiastic to vote--lowering turnout. 

Stop gaslighting. 

Bolded is absolutely true. There are Republican reps that need to be shown the door and a D sweep on the Senate ticket in November would have made that easier. 

But the idea of outside influence propping up Garvey at the expense of Porter is some next level Leftist dooming bullshit. Let's not pretend there aren't actually Republican voters in California. I think there are more who live there than in Texas. In any case, Schiff and Garvey both doubled up Porter's margin. There's no way she could have closed that gap, dark money or not.

The real problem was Lee running and crowding the progressive lane. She probably would have gotten my vote if I still lived in CA. East Bay represent!

[naija 2804]

On 3/8/2024 at 11:29 AM, Post Oak said:

She was stupid to run. Now she has a stupid prize 

Palabra.

Someone forgot the game was politics.

[Dutchrudder 11056]

12 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

A lot of gaslighting going on here. Thanks to Citizens United—elections are rigged by billionaires. And Schiff—like Feinstein—is more favored by billionaires than a reform-minded Porter who threatens their stranglehold on political power. 

Schiff propping up a Repub candidate will hurt Dem candidates in close races—as California Repubs will have a reason to go out and vote against Schiff (a man hated by trumpests) and every other Dem on a ballot in swing districts. 

Finally, reform minded Dems (who appreciated Porter’s approach to corporate malfeasance) will be less enthusiastic to vote--lowering turnout. 

Stop gaslighting. 

Do you really think this had any impact on the results?  Garvey got 900k more votes than Porter, and nearly as much as Schiff, I doubt that had anything to do with mailers or local ads. Porter would have needed to more than double her vote total to get 2nd place.  Even in 2022 when there was only Padilla as a Democrat running in the primary the 2nd place Republican got over 1 million votes, while the next 3 combined for 1 million more. Republicans are a sizeable group in California, and they would have to be asleep at the wheel to not have one of their guys get 2nd place in the primary.

Katie wasn't going to make it, Schiff is too big of a name for her to overcome. However, if she wanted to move to Maine and go after Susan Collins seat in 2026, I would  love to see that. I want to see her in a safe Senate seat for the foreseeable future, but I don't think that's going to happen in California. 

2022 primary results:

 

[washparkhorn 9907]

Six flippable Republican House members in California will benefit from energized trumpsters looking forward to voting against Schiff. There are only 45 truly competitive House seats. 

Schiff’s unforced and cynical error may keep the House in Republican hands. 

[berlinerbaer 670]

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Six flippable Republican House members in California will benefit from energized trumpsters looking forward to voting against Schiff. There are only 45 truly competitive House seats. 

Schiff’s unforced and cynical error may keep the House in Republican hands. 

There is no universe where Garvey would have placed any worse than second.

[Js1 83352]

26 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

There is no universe where Garvey would have placed any worse than second.

Especially in a presidential year with Trump on the GOP primary ballot. 

[washparkhorn 9907]

“Post-truth politics has been diagnosed as harmful to both knowledge and democracy. I argue that it can also fundamentally undermine epistemic autonomy in a way that is similar to the manipulative technique known as gaslighting. Using examples from contemporary politics, I identify three categories of post-truth rhetoric: the introduction of counternarratives, the discrediting of critics, and the denial of more or less plain facts.

These strategies tend to isolate people epistemically, leaving them disoriented and unable to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.

Like gaslighting, post-truth politics aims to undermine epistemic autonomy by eroding someone's self-trust, in order to consolidate power. Shifting the focus to the effects on the victim allows for new insights into the specific harms of post-truth politics. Applying the concept of gaslighting to this domain may also help people recognize a pernicious dynamic that was invisible to them before, giving them an important tool to resist it.”

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/posttruth-politics-and-collective-gaslighting/88BDC6B5D1540817086E1027A0FF1B5A

[Js1 83352]

Look I’m sorry your candidate lost, but no one is gaslighting you.  Katie finished so far behind Garvey, it wasn’t rigged and Schiff didn’t create that 700k gap on his own by encouraging it to become a 2 way race between him and Garvey.

The fact that Porter’s supporters can’t square this is becoming akin to Bernie 2016. 

[washparkhorn 9907]

33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Look I’m sorry your candidate lost, but no one is gaslighting you.  Katie finished so far behind Garvey, it wasn’t rigged and Schiff didn’t create that 700k gap on his own by encouraging it to become a 2 way race between him and Garvey.

The fact that Porter’s supporters can’t square this is becoming akin to Bernie 2016. 

[Boss Hogg 808]

On 7/14/2023 at 8:02 AM, RomaVicta said:

Porter is a breathtaking combination of knowledge and ability to convey that knowledge.

Lulz 

 

She’s truly breathtaking. 

Edited March 11 by Boss Hogg

[Boss Hogg 808]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:37 AM, RomaVicta said:

Damn. I would likely vote for Schiff, but I hate seeing Porter lose anything.

I see it's four years until the other seat comes up. I have little knowledge of Butler, but a quick scan on google indicates she might very good. Just a guess.

Biden should find a place for Porter in his administration. She's too valuable not to be working for the republic.

Hahaha just stop. She lost to Adam Schiff.
 

I’m trying to think of a R comparison. His likability is Ted Cruzesque but he has certain young Mitt Romney quality in the eyes but that’s underselling it. He’s a total psycho. 

[WhatTheBuck 28613]

3 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

“Post-truth politics has been diagnosed as harmful to both knowledge and democracy. I argue that it can also fundamentally undermine epistemic autonomy in a way that is similar to the manipulative technique known as gaslighting. Using examples from contemporary politics, I identify three categories of post-truth rhetoric: the introduction of counternarratives, the discrediting of critics, and the denial of more or less plain facts.

These strategies tend to isolate people epistemically, leaving them disoriented and unable to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.

Like gaslighting, post-truth politics aims to undermine epistemic autonomy by eroding someone's self-trust, in order to consolidate power. Shifting the focus to the effects on the victim allows for new insights into the specific harms of post-truth politics. Applying the concept of gaslighting to this domain may also help people recognize a pernicious dynamic that was invisible to them before, giving them an important tool to resist it.”

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/posttruth-politics-and-collective-gaslighting/88BDC6B5D1540817086E1027A0FF1B5A

You sound like a disgruntled Bernie bro. Were you one of them too?

Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river. I like Katie too but she was an underdog and was expected to lose. She lost. Get over it. 

[RomaVicta 29574]

10 hours ago, Boss Hogg said:

Hahaha just stop. She lost to Adam Schiff.
 

I’m trying to think of a R comparison. His likability is Ted Cruzesque but he has certain young Mitt Romney quality in the eyes but that’s underselling it. He’s a total psycho. 

Thanks for straightening me out. Porter is a dim light indeed compared to the way you put together an argument.

[jimmyjazz 45192]

Two unconnected thoughts:

-- somebody doesn't know what it means to "gaslight" someone

-- equating Adam Schiff to Ted Cruz is one of the most hilariously bizarre things I've read in weeks

 

[YGIFS 19445]

Yeah, it was a weird race.  Katie is entitled to bemoan it a bit, but she needs to tap the brakes and get back to her work in the House.  I know these nominations shouldn't be based on seniority, that's how we get the old fucks we get.  But she's only been in for about 5 years and is only 50 years.  She has a very bright future ahead of her in California, or a Cabinet, or a Bench.  Schiff is just so much more connected to the CA political machine.  She'll get bigger and better chances.  But the comparison to Ted Cruz, wtf?  If anything there's more of a connection between the behavior of Heidi Cruz and Steve Garvey than anything.  

[956 Worldwide 34006]

Calling elections “rigged” is corrosive and damaging no matter who is doing it and why.  It is a signal to people who support you that you shouldn’t take part in elections (because who plays a rigged game) and also a refusal to accept that you simply weren’t as popular as the other candidates.

And in Porter’s case, its rank hypocrisy. She had plenty of coin and outspent other candidates down the ballot. Maybe they would have been more successful than Porter if they had her funds. I also don’t view small-contribution campaigns as somehow sacrosanct— they play to a certain subset of politically active voter with income to spare and who chooses to use it on politics.  That’s usually going to lean progressive but it’s no indication that the candidate actually is going to have more popular stances.  Bernie is a good comparison: 
 

I actually am FOR smaller elections, funded by the government equally, where each candidate on the ballot gets a set amount to spend.  Porter should run for Congress and advocate for that kind of reform. 

[washparkhorn 9907]

Citizens United ensures elections can be rigged in this nation. Schiff is a blue dog Dem (Republican lite) who promoted a Republican candidates with no real campaign of his own to ensure he would not face eiter Barbara Lee or Katie Porter (traditional Democrats) in the general,  Tech billionaires who loathe the reform-minded Porter spent $10 million in attack ads against Porter, as she threatened their continued domination of efforts to contain their power and control.

Schiff’s pied-piper gambit in promoting Garvey is the inability for the Dems to take back the House of Reps. Blue Dogs have no problem with a divided Congress--it suits their wealthy benefactors. 

Frankly—Porter went too easy on Schiff,  she should have been whiteboarding the fuck out of the Blue Dog scheme--and raising the specter of a 2016 when another Blue Dog deployed a pied-piper strategy. The chickens always come home to roost. 

 

[Anastasis 23214]

She broke some rules. 

 

[Willfully Horn 7870]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

She broke some rules. 

 

Never pass on the chance to foment division, amirite? LOL on the thought that fundamentalists would criticize Israel. 
 

[Anastasis 23214]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Never pass on the chance to foment division, amirite? LOL on the thought that fundamentalists would criticize Israel. 
 

Do you need a tissue?

[Willfully Horn 7870]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Do you need a tissue?

Thanks, but no. Your wife needed the whole box to wipe up.
 

For someone who likes to criticize others for their short attention span, you easily forget history when any chance to erode bedrock presents itself.

[Anastasis 23214]

3 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks, but no. Your wife needed the whole box to wipe up.
 

For someone who likes to criticize others for their short attention span, you easily forget history when any chance to erode bedrock presents itself.

Sorry that Katie pays more attention than you are capable of. 

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

She broke some rules. 

 

We got fuckers breaking Constitutional amendments and you're worried about breaking the Leahy Laws?

Tell me right now what is the major point of the Leahy Law and why what Katie Porter said is so bad.

[Anastasis 23214]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

We got fuckers breaking Constitutional amendments and you're worried about breaking the Leahy Laws?

Katie seems worried about it. This is the Katie Porter thread. Are you ok?

[Anastasis 23214]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Tell me right now what is the major point of the Leahy Law and why what Katie Porter said is so bad.

Looks like your posts got merged. I never said that anything she said was bad. Do you do reading comprehension?

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

I watched the video where she said Israel gets some special rules and I'm wondering why you think that's some sort of earth shattering rule breaking.

Please explain.

[Anastasis 23214]

58 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

We got fuckers breaking Constitutional amendments and you're worried about breaking the Leahy Laws?

Was that directed at me or Katie?

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Was that directed at me or Katie?

you.

As far as I know Ms. Porter doesn't post here.

[Anastasis 23214]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

you.

As far as I know Ms. Porter doesn't post here.

I didn’t write the tweet that you seem to be offended by. 

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

The tweet doesn't offend me at all.  Your stating she broke some rules does.

What rules did she break?

[Anastasis 23214]

6 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The tweet doesn't offend me at all.  Your stating she broke some rules does.

What rules did she break?

  I guess now I should be happy she lost in the Senate primary.

[jimmyjazz 45192]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  I guess now I should be happy she lost in the Senate primary.

Answer the fucking question, unless you're just making shit up.

[Anastasis 23214]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Answer the fucking question, unless you're just making shit up.

What rule did she break? The one where as a representative in Congress you put common sense and decency and the interests of Americans above all others.