It's funny that while you were a Sanders diehard in 2016-2020 and even left the Democrats over it, but are no longer sympathetic to the idea that money can rig an election. I was a Clinton guy, although somewhat sympathetic, didn't think the 2016 primary was rigged. But now, I agree with Porter that the primary was rigged, and you may be more likely to sport a D avatar in the future than me.
In both cases, I supported the female candidate and you supported the male candidate. I should point out that on Open Secrets, Fetterman actually outspent Oz (total spending $75 million to $49 million) and also had more outside money supporting him than Oz. https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2022&id=PAS1
Porter otoh was outspent by Schiff, $23 million - $38 million, and had $10 million opposing her by a crypto PAC! https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2024&id=CAS2
I won't even get into Summer Lee and Pappas because, running for a Congressional seat or in a state like NH is obviously nothing like running in California. My view remains that money plays a corrosive role in politics that undermines our democracy, particularly in states like CA, but that the extreme charges of the Sanders supporters in 2016 were exaggerated.
I am sympathetic to a point. I'm not saying it's not an advantage, because it absolutely is. I'm just saying that it's not insurmountable. I'm not gonna split hairs here - I was a Lee guy but Schiff was my #2 because of Porter's support of Netanyahu's power grab over the judiciary. Schiff is just aggressively mid - he represents the empty "own the cons" section of the party I distance myself from - but on policy he's not going to be a total disaster.
In some cases, like Nina Turner and Katie Porter, a cursory analysis of their election suggests other factors than money. Money doesn't explain Turner's total inability to attract any new voters or Porter reaching only the mid-teens. I think the current system we live in is absolutely disgusting, and an illegitimate decision from an illegitimate hack court. But these are the rules we have to play by, and we do have to fight before we can change it.
So would you still denounce Chuck Schumer and/or the DSCC coronating many candidates in Democratic Senate primaries from 2006-2020 by giving such candidates overwhelming financial and institutional support, sometimes very early on in the election cycle? Aside from causing some candidates to lose their respective primaries, such moves also caused others to either drop out or refuse to run altogether. Some of these "coronated" candidates ended up blowing winnable races - I estimate that Democrats could have won an additional 3-5 Senate races in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles combined had they put up better candidates and/or run better campaigns.
Poll
