California Senate 2024 - Schiff (D) vs Garvey (R)

[coloradocowboi]

It’s still way too early to predict what will happen with any real certainty, but that being said, at the moment it is looking like a Porter vs. Schiff race with Lee as a third-wheel running a vanity campaign.  Again, that could definitely change, but going strictly off of what we know right now, I think the forum CW is underestimating Porter’s odds and pretty heavily overestimating Lee’s chances given the currently available information.

Such is the case when the most vocal & frequent posters in this thread are ardently pro-Lee

In my own defense, I am not discounting Katie Porter. I just haven't heard anyone address the serious shortcomings I've listed: 1. How is she going to appeal to communities of color? 2. What will make progressives choose her over Lee besides the issue of age? 3. Where in California specifically will she perform well? And with what voters?

[coloradocowboi]

I thought domestic policy was going to be the focus of the race.

It probably will. I don't think any of the three want this vote to be the crux of the election - including Lee, given that she knows she bucked the party establishment on it.

Remember that Feinstein never lost to a primary challenger despite voting for the war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.

She only ever had one credible primary challenger after both of these and he came within ten points of beating her statewide despite having way less money and being Kevin de Leon. The fact that a corrupt San Francisco millionairess managed to earn enough establishment support to perpetuate a career in California politics isn’t exactly compelling evidence that people in California somehow support the Iraq war lol. Do Rep. DesJarlais’ supporters and voters all secretly support abortion rights because they overlooked his own transgressions? Nah

[coloradocowboi]

And just like that Porter becomes my least favorite Democratic Senate candidate. This type of dangerous, misinformed rhetoric is the last thing we need from a U.S. Senator. Before commenting on this issue she needs to understand the vast difference between the US and Israel. This is disqualifying imo - she's just casually promoting the end of democracy in another country.

https://twitter.com/Ian_Gay_briel/status/1633228672772591618?s=20

God d*** it!  Well, I can’t in good conscience support Porter anymore; I agree that this should be disqualifying.  Not that the average voter will care, but yikes!

Everybody's acting like this is some new revelation. U.S. politicians, even Democrats, have been simping for Israel since the 1940s. IMO it's pointless to talk about this when only about 10 members of congress openly condemn Netanyahu and his government.

That article removed important context in the headline. She was impressed by his "candidness" not his actions.

Change is about progress. Not perfection

You seem not to be understanding the Neville Chamberlain reference.

This is gross and yucky, and probably will not get her the votes she thinks it will (they are going to Adam Schiff), and absolutely will lower her ceiling with young POC.

[coloradocowboi]

How is this disqualifying? Most Democrats have supported Israel’s government for decades. Why is suddenly not OK to support Netanyahu now, but it was 10 years ago?

Because he left the realm of regular democratic leaders and entered the realm of Orbans with the new "reform", which she's legitimizing here.

Apparently she still thinks she's dealing with the same old center-right but democratic leader Bibi from when Obama and Trump were president. Schiff, who you'd expect to be to her right on this, criticized him.

Heck, even Bloomberg of all people is starting to come out against him.

I just keep getting amateur hour vibes from Katie Porter. A lot of progressive politicians do this: pivot hard to Zionism as a cheap way to become centrist. The problem is that most Zionist voters aren't die-hard Bibi Netanyahu fans and Adam Schiff has endless cred on this issue and IIRC is also Jewish. The only people I can even imagine this pleasing or placating are hard-right Orthodox and Conservative Jewish people who probably wouldn't vote for any Democrat least of all Katie Porter lol

My prediction is that Katie is gonna spend the most money in the campaign but wildly vacillate on her brand and issue positions in search of an audience. This is exactly how Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign also went down. It's telling that Katie should be the undisputed frontrunner but has less establishment support than a corporate puppet and former "cop" despised by the left and right and an 80-year-old former Black Panther socialist from Oakland. The opinion polls are meaningless rn, basically barometers of "do you know who this is?" I don't see this getting any better for Katie Porter, and it's kinda a bummer to me now that she won't hold her OC house seat.

[coloradocowboi]

It gets worse:

https://twitter.com/michaelarria/status/1633174480141918209
Warrenites, man.

Democrats of the Elizabeth Warren school of thought are the worst. Not only are they pretending to be progressives, they are TERRIBLY politically and come off as extremely unappealing to average voters.

Who is an average voter?

I think “average voter” is being used as a code for DSA types who frequently vote third party (Green/Peace and Freedom).

It’s actually the opposite. Elizabeth Warren and Katie are appealing to intellectual, high earning democrats, well mostly the white ones. Meanwhile Bernie was cleaning up with union households and lower income people. What I suspect is that is who is being referenced.

Average here means closer to the majority, I presume, so less ideological/intellectual and more poor. And from a data based perspective it’s true. Even this bizarre LGBTQ inclusive Likud stuff is evidence that Katie doesn’t really understand anybody but wealthy, neoliberal woke types who don’t really care about what is happening in Palestine and can easily be convinced to support it as long as it’s LGBTQ troops pulling Palestinian mothers out of their homes. She’s going for the rainbow imperialist vote, which makes sense cuz it’s actually prolly a lot of people in Laguna Beach and Newport in her district who are like that. But literally nowhere else in CA bedsides maybe wealthy parts of SD cares that there are gay people in Likud… except maybe Arab  communities here in LA and the Bay who might honestly think her bizarre association with that is a reason not to vote for Katie Porter lol

[coloradocowboi]

If against another democrat, Lee gets most the R votes. She isn't often on MSNBC talking trash about Trump like the rest of them, she's more populist and has that Bernie-Trump appeal. R voters aren't ideological, they vote based on vibes.

Generally speaking, Democrats' economic agenda is a lot more popular than their social issues, and Lee is a lot more of a socialist than a social justice warrior. I also think that the historicity of her candidacy will speak to some Republicans in CA for sure, especially if it's a convenient excuse not to vote for the loathsome Adam Schiff. I don't know if Lee would be favored against Porter to the same extent as she would against Schiff though. Given Porter's shifting to the right, I actually think she would have an advantage with GOP voters over Lee. On the other hand though, I think Lee performs better with center-left, Dem "establishment" voters against Porter than Schiff, and there are a lot more of those here than Republicans sadly

[coloradocowboi]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1648657838216978432

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1659181109119184896?t=uTsPKw6kbuiPVzIzaI80q...

One of the most revolting exploitations of identity politics I've ever seen. This wasn't sexism and these elder abusing f**king crooks know it's not sexism.

The oligarchy is alive and well in San Francisco. But I’m sure that this has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi trying to preserve her class’s power at the expense of the progressive ideals she claims. After all it’s her opponents who are so sexist that they are trying to get someone reported by Vox to have Alzheimer’s almost a decade ago out of the senate.

Nancy Pelosi is easily the most corrupt, evil, corporate tool of a democrat and once again it shows

[coloradocowboi]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1648657838216978432

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1659181109119184896?t=uTsPKw6kbuiPVzIzaI80q...

One of the most revolting exploitations of identity politics I've ever seen. This wasn't sexism and these elder abusing f**king crooks know it's not sexism.

The oligarchy is alive and well in San Francisco. But I’m sure that this has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi trying to preserve her class’s power at the expense of the progressive ideals she claims. After all it’s her opponents who are so sexist that they are trying to get someone reported by Vox to have Alzheimer’s almost a decade ago out of the senate.

Nancy Pelosi is easily the most corrupt, evil, corporate tool of a democrat and once again it shows

But that oligarchy usually props up local candidates at the expense of LA. The Machine is very much a Bay Area machine.

The SF machine is behind Barbara Lee, but that doesn’t mean much when their donors aren’t.

[coloradocowboi]

I doubt that this is comparable to Kennedy, given her lack of support for candidates like Conor Lamb or Colleen Hanabusa in their contested primaries. The only other example of Pelosi intervening in any other Senate primary is Ben Ray Lujan - a strong ally in Pelosi's personal inner circle.

I think you mostly have it right, but it's very clear in retrospect that she endorsed Kennedy because Markey was getting too close to the Squad.

She's hostile to socialism, and it's pretty well-documented. She is so neoliberal she thinks that members of Congress have a literal right to invest in the stock market. She's an ideologue on this issue. And I'm sure it has nothing to do with her own obscene wealth and privilege

[coloradocowboi]

Yeah that's pretty much the case. Porter is leading right now due to name rec but she doesn't have a machine that will bring people out to vote for her knock doors make phone calls etc. Porters support is soft rn and from low info voters who are less likely to turnout or spread the word and encourage others to vote for her. Lee will have plenty of grassroots support and her support will be more solid and more likely to be mainted and expanded. Essentially Lee has more room to grow and larger engine to keep her in the race and her fundraising will be more reliable since she has more organizations and elected officials backing her and you need a lot of money and a consistent stream of if to compete in a state as big as Cali

But that's the thing, Porter has a huge online fundraising network, she really does not need to worry about local officials throwing her a $1,000 a plate fundraisers. Same with Schiff.  Honestly the reason I think Lee is likely to finish behind Schiff and Porter in the primary is I don't think she can fundraise with them.

I mean does she really though? She had a great launch yes with donors from across the country but when people from outside Cali learn about Lee especially if a national figure like Bernie endorses her, will as many people keep there donations to her up? One of the reasons she had such a successful launch too was there's no major national races going on now. As we get closer to November there will be the presidential race, the national Senate race and the house. Most national donors are gonna put Katie's Senate race at a much lower priority while all the in state organizations and donors who will be backing Lee will still have a vested interest in the race and it will be one of there top priorities.

I think I agree that people are maybe discounting Porter a little too heavily, but I really have no idea how she’s gonna appeal to nonwhite voters and haven’t got a good answer on that yet. Black donors and interest groups are gonna back Lee, and honestly labor is very likely too as well given the subtle nuances between her and Porter and her longer record (and that unions are filled with nonwhite democrat voters in California).

My question the whole time is who specifically is going to back Katie? And I still haven’t heard much of an answer to that. My bougie aunts in Irvine and Marin, sure. But wealthy white ladies have a lot less punch than they used to, and may end up voting for Lee if she becomes the cool and trendy candidate anyway.

Also, we just had the state convention by my house and it was a Barbara Lee love fest. The activist base is behind her. The establishment is behind Schiff. So, I’m looking out for actually strategy from the Porter campaign because they have a lot tougher task than it appears. For example, how is she gonna answer inevitable questions about why she and not a Black lady should be elected given their similar records? And she can’t go all “she’s old” because that never plays well in a primary full of elderly voters.

[coloradocowboi]

https://twitter.com/BarbaraLeeForCA/status/1701041279839375670
These comments by Barabara Lee expressing her dissapointing with the descion are both sour grapes and seem to express a contemptous attitude towards the idea that voters should be able to pick their representives and the concept of senators representing all their counstituents not just the ones they share demographics charectersitcs with.

It's one of the most entitltied things i've seen written by any major us politican.

Yeah, that's a bad statement which makes her sound like a bitter person with an inflated sense of entitlement. It won't make her many new friends.

I agree and it basically ends her candidacy, but she’s also right. So Newsom’s goal the whole time was to nominate a black figurehead to pander while still supporting a white former blue dog behind the scenes? Typical of him.

This is all wonderful news for Senator-elect Katie Porter though anyway. The party is trying to rig it for Schiff, but she has crossover appeal and will win progressives handily.

[coloradocowboi]

Not Rigging the race for Lee is rigging it for Schiff ? This is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning.

Wow you have a fitting username lol.

You're acting as if rich donors are not lining up behind Schiff (they are), as if the vast majority of moderate party stooges in office aren't endorsing him (they are), and as if Nancy Pelosi's very public crusade to anoint him doesn't exist (it does). So maybe the line of reasoning is dubious because you don't care about or accurately perceive corrupt party apparatuses trying to force white Blue Dog moderates down the California voting public's throat yet again...

The major power brokers involved here (i.e. Newsom, Pelosi, etc.) prefer Schiff because he is a pro-corporate & pro-establishment politician, as opposed to Lee & Porter who are both progressives.

This is nonsense.

Newsom prefers establishment politicians instead of progressives (as shown by his earlier appointment of Alex Padilla)

This is not true. Newsom prefers politicians who are loyal to him. If you try to find evidence that he dislikes "progressives" you will find none. This is not an ideological issue because the California Democratic Party is not split into ideologically-based factions because California is not New York. Somehow people keep thinking that it is.

I'm going to have to repeat myself:

Schiff is the candidate of wealthy establishment liberals. He’d crush Lee in SoCal as she’s too economically left for a lot of those voters, and so is Porter in Silicon Valley.

In keeping with what I've said in this thread in the past, it's absolutely inscrutable what "establishment" means here. People should stop using "establishment" to mean "economically right-wing" and just say that. Those terms might be synonymous in New York but they're very much not here.

You cannot use "establishment" and "progressive" as antonyms in California. I doubt you can do it in most places that aren't New York, but you certainly can't here. Please reformat your argument so that it doesn't do this.

I disagree with you so strongly right now. It is exactly like New York. Real estate interests pick nominees and inundate their campaigns with money. Pelosi and Feinstein are literally married into the class that we are talking about. The moderates in California are economically right-wing and Gavin Newsom has backed them up in every decision that matters - offshore drilling, nuclear power, NIMBYism, you name it. Gavin Newsom is basically Andrew Cuomo minus the creepiness.

I love what you have to say normally but this is wrong. If establishment and progressive aren't antonyms then why did Hillary Clinton wade into an LA city council race?

[coloradocowboi]

I’m gunning for London Breed to be the placeholder, young, a woman of color, Mayor from the same city DiFi was once mayor of. It’ll be perfect

Also, I hope that this shows all the other geriatrics in congress what’s coming to them COUGHmitchmcconnellCOUGH and starts a precedented retirement wave either next year or 2026

I’ll pass. They should appoint a real democrat not a Google funded, right wing shill

[coloradocowboi]

It's incredibly unprecedented for the third-place candidate and her surrogates to repeatedly demand the seat be given to them in the middle of an ongoing race. Bizarre.

I almost hope Newsom goes ahead and taps Schiff as the party choice at this point.

If Newsom breaks his pledge it would probably be the African American part (cause all his options said no?) rather than the placeholder part at this point.

I mean, he couldn’t appoint Lee even if he wanted to at this point, right?  It’d make him look really weak for being bullied into submission by the Twitter tantrum of some random congresswoman who can’t even crack double-digits in a statewide primary

Yes, but also it appears as though the Black political establishment is also applying pressure on him. Thus far every notable Black female politician has said they won’t take a caretaker appt and many have said he should give it to Lee. So, if he doesn’t appoint her there is a good chance he will just bolster her argument that he’s looking to appoint a token Black person to advance his own interests and not to help Black ppl.

Gavin Newsom has turned a moment of potential strength into a lose-lose situation.

[coloradocowboi]

This is one of the most disgusting campaigns for senate I’ve ever seen. Barbara Lee should apologize on behalf of herself and her surrogates and drop out.

https://twitter.com/pramilajayapal/status/1707985811617063056?s=46&t=o2RmfeV...

"Why is it that when the surrounding circumstances are totally different, different outcomes occur?"

This just shows how little you understand her point. Why bother appointing a Black woman at all if your intent is for her to only hold power for a month or two only to be replaced by a white person? Instead of lifting Black ppl up, Newsom uses them for public relations - and fails to even get that right

[coloradocowboi]

So Newsom endears himself to Labor, Women, and the LGBT probably ending slightly disfavored to even with black voters, and pissing of progressives and labor.

We’ll see how this plays out.

This progressive is perfectly happy.

Most in the state aren’t. But they already hated Newsom.

At the end of the day, anybody progressive and intelligent will see through this ruse. He appointed a corporate lobbyist and carpetbagger so he could let Black women have the “representation” he thinks they deserve for a few months. The only people benefiting from this appointment are Gavin Newsom and the corporate interests that have propped up his career.

Barbara Lee and her allies really played themselves with this one. Their PR campaign to bully Newsom was clearly misguided.

This is straight up absurd. How do you bully your own governor? Maybe that word means something completely divorced from its real definition to you.

At any rate, pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming to value Black women’s political representation while appointing one only as a caretaker isn’t bullying so much as stating the obvious. This is giving me Hillary 2016 level white self-victimization. “Omg the mean Black people want more than a year of political representation”! How dare they

[coloradocowboi]

https://twitter.com/meridak/status/1709212656136081841?t=PwsRJFMyNTk1JtupLMhqwg&...

This tells me that she is not running,  and Newsom picked a DC insider to do a DC job for a few months. This is because filing deadlines are fast approaching for the March primary.  She is a hypothetical candidate with no name recognition, already-uncovered potential election weaknesses,  and all opponents have lots of money in a expensive state where millions of voters need to be in your corner to win. If she was running, it would have to start now, and hard. Delay in this situation is the same as no.

The Black community has already lined up behind Barbara Lee. Labor has also already began picking its sides. Progressives will hate her work for Uber and Lyft and establishmentarians are already behind Schiff. She seems like a smart politico and probably sees the tea leaves as plain as day: at best she will just keep another Black woman from a fair shot at the Senate. I don’t see how she breaks out of the top 2 without a massive infusion of cash, which also leaves her vulnerable.

People here seem to forget this is a primary electorate that gave Bernie and Warren a combined 60% of the vote too. I wouldn’t assume voters are interested in a more moderate, corporate friendly Black woman. And those that are will be enamored by MSNBC darling Adam Schiff. Sen. Butler probably doesn’t have many viable paths to get re-elected without veering to the left or going full scorched earth on the other progressives, which carries its own risks.

[coloradocowboi]

Yes, BUT WHY IS IT ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES?

It is a cipher for colonialism. Even my WASP a** understands that. It's not even the best one IMO because after all we are arguing who is more evil: a right-wing racist Israeli government or an Islamic extremist organization that was originally created by the CIA and another right-wing racist Israeli government to halt Fatah's progress and stop the spread of socialism in the Arab world #missionaccomplished

But I've noticed most of the people asking this question are one or both of the following: 1. Older or 2. White. For young POC, the blatant brutality and how the media/establishment let Israel just get away with it feels like a reminder that their lives matter less to the State and to capitalism...

I personally don't get it, but also am literally descended from KKK members and a man who is almost singularly responsibly for killing off the Delaware Indians. I can only approach it rationally, and from that POV it seems like a silly hill to die on. People say that all the time about LGBTQ issues though - which do affect me - and it enfuriates me. Makes me not want to vote Democratic even....

But this issue definitely cuts in Lee's favor in a high-turnout election. Mexican-Americans and Black Americans dgaf about Israel. If they do, they are at least as likely (proly much more) to understand it as an artifact of colonialism and not get the anti-semitism angle. They don't have Holocaust guilt because pretty much every pogrom in history outside of Ethiopia was caused by white people.

And I bring all of this up just to mention once again that California is demographically and culturally v different from the USA as a whole, and I think this Palestine issue could be potent for Barbara Lee. Especially when it comes to mobilizing progressives, peeling them off from Porter, and getting into the top 2. It doesn't matter why it's important or whether us internet pundits think it should be. It obviously is, and she should be trying to capitalize off it.

In the general tho... I would advise her to be cautious. This is one of the few issues that Schiff could use to win back white Republicans who hate his guts. The "decolonization" angle will scare them off. She needs to keep the focus on: 1. Crimes against humanity, which sorry folks Israel is committing. And 2. The cost both diplomatically and financially of funding their constant oppression of the Palestinians.

There are a myriad of ongoing genocides, none of which the average progressive could name or even remotely care about. Except for Israel.

What this really boils down to- for progressives at least- is the following:

Do you want an effective fighter for leftist causes, or a geriatric activist who hates Jewish people but otherwise has the same views.

I wish you guys would stop fighting caricatures of progressives and have a good faith conversation with one though. It's like you pick the most ignorant college student and act like that's representative of Marxism-Leninism, a 150 year old school of sociology. I never hear y'all engaging point-by-point with actual theory or even just a Jacobin article. Just Susie so and so with blue hair...

"Progressive" news like Jacobin has covered Armenia (as well as Azerbaijan's ties to Israel...), Modi's persecution of Muslims, the Rohingya far more than any mainstream outlet I consume. I'd be happy to write a long post for you explaining why the ongoing treatment of Native Americans by our government technically STILL constitutes genocide and cite my sources while I'm at it.

Finally, tho certainly not for the last time, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism and to assert so is actually deeply anti-semitic itself. Jewish people do not owe loyalty to any State just because of who they are. It is never lost on me that at the time when the scholars comprising the Frankfurt School of Marxist social inquiry were fleeing the Nazis that the same "classical liberal" types who today call anything less than a full-throated endorsement of Israeli military policy "anti-semitic" were silent. I know my history and I know what side I stand on - with hundreds of Jewish intellectuals deeply concerned with their community's liberation and deeply familiar with anti-Jewish violence, so I resent a lot of what you're saying here because it's ahistorical and seemingly just another fig leaf in the long history of anti-leftism, which is itself deeply entangled with the history of anti-semitism.

[coloradocowboi]

Yes, BUT WHY IS IT ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES?

It is a cipher for colonialism. Even my WASP a** understands that. It's not even the best one IMO because after all we are arguing who is more evil: a right-wing racist Israeli government or an Islamic extremist organization that was originally created by the CIA and another right-wing racist Israeli government to halt Fatah's progress and stop the spread of socialism in the Arab world #missionaccomplished

Are you actually a professor, because this one of the dumbest most historically illiterate things I've seen on this forum and is a prime example of why American leftist political thought has so little success. The extent of CIA influence in the creation of the Muslim brotherhood is third order.

I love how you bring no facts, just ad hominem insults and some weird obsession/familiarity with my previous posts.

Unlike you, instead of insults I have sources for my opinions which is probably why I am a college professor and you're just crying about it on the internet.

And this just furthers my point: moderate, pro-establishment people in here whine about how leftists are "out of touch" just because we maybe know something that you don't or have a different perspective. Then you same people ask why we don't turn out to vote or why we voted in Rashida Tlaib. It's cuz we disagree and you can't even fathom the disagreement because of your anger and hubris lol.

Read up on all this and then come back to talk to me like a grown adult. And for the love of God please don't tell me Haaretz or the Times of Israel is a "leftwing biased source" or something. Y'all move the football constantly, which is probably why I'm defending myself from personal attacks and you got upvoted despite saying absolutely nothing of communicative value.

(PS - I have never understood how linking sources works here and have even been moderated for doing it wrong, so hopefully this works but I'm happy to provide sources cuz again I have more than insults and name-calling to prove my point here)

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/10/20/divide_and_rule_how_israel_helped

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000


Finally, I'll just say that as someone more center left than leftist, I have been pushed into a corner on this issue which is exactly why I would vote for Barbara Lee. The notion that somehow you are either pro-Israel or pro-terrorism is the exact kind of false equivalence that turns people off pro-Israel advocacy. I am so tired of Zionists getting an exception to the rules about civility not only on this forum but every day life. Go ahead and insult my intelligence, because if that's all you have to say than maybe you're the one who is historically (or otherwise) illiterate not me