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

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't have a strong opinion on Barbara Lee but the idea of starting a Senate career at 79 is objectively ridiculous. Especially when the whole point is that DiFi needs to go because she's too old. I don't know if Lee is "more progressive" than Porter by some metrics, but even if she is, what progressives in the Senate need is someone who can be there for the long haul and build the kind of influence that only accrues with seniority (not to mention for her state as well - once DiFi is gone the most senior Senator will be from the 2021 cohort). This strikes me as a vanity run frankly and I hope she reconsiders.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't have a strong opinion on Barbara Lee but the idea of starting a Senate career at 79 is objectively ridiculous. Especially when the whole point is that DiFi needs to go because she's too old. I don't know if Lee is "more progressive" than Porter by some metrics, but even if she is, what progressives in the Senate need is someone who can be there for the long haul and build the kind of influence that only accrues with seniority (not to mention for her state as well - once DiFi is gone the most senior Senator will be from the 2021 cohort). This strikes me as a vanity run frankly and I hope she reconsiders.

I think the point of Feinstein having to go is that she is rapidly losing her mental faculties, not her age per se. Lee is the most progressive candidate/potential candidate in the field and doesn’t have scandals like Porter does.

I mean, at that age, loss of mental faculties can potentially start happening at any time. I don't think that's inherently disqualifying, but it's certainly worth considering. Even if Lee can be an effective Senator in 2025, will she still be one in 2030? And even if not, I just don't see other Senators caring as much about what she has to say knowing she'll only be around for a few years.

I don't know much about Porter's scandals. They sound bad, I guess, but I don't know, if doesn't feel like it has really blown up even after a few years so I'm not sure it ever will. If someone came out with specific and circumstantiated allegations it'd be a different matter, of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would be absolutely hilarious if the GE is Porter vs Schiff and Porter wins because Republicans hate Schiff so much. Based #Populist coalition against establishment Dems!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I don't support Schiff but I wouldn't exactly call it disqualifying when you're living in the DC area because you're literally representing your state in Congress.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Welp, it finally happened, Barbara Lee has officially placed fourth behind a Republican

https://twitter.com/philwillon/status/1720442185257234479?s=46&t=XC6qQa4mbo0...

When the top 4 only total 52% of the vote everything is still up in the air. Realistically, qualifying for the runoff will probably require at least 25% of the vote (33% to mathematically guarantee it) so Porter and Schiff are not quite there yet, but hopefully Katie will keep cruisin'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/BarbaraLeeForCA/status/1720938804859818065?s=20
In case it wasn't clear before, and I do realize this isn't necessarily a new development but Lee's unequivocally got my support and I've gotta assume whatever progressive grassroots support Porter had is going to be tenuous at best going forward.

Absolutely surreal that "progressive grassroots" would suddenly dump a solid progressive advocate who's been one of the most effective voices in taking the billionaire class to task just because of inane litmus tests on Muh Conflict. If that happens, all lefties will have proved is how myopic and self-sabotaging they really are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/BarbaraLeeForCA/status/1720938804859818065?s=20
In case it wasn't clear before, and I do realize this isn't necessarily a new development but Lee's unequivocally got my support and I've gotta assume whatever progressive grassroots support Porter had is going to be tenuous at best going forward.

Absolutely surreal that "progressive grassroots" would suddenly dump a solid progressive advocate who's been one of the most effective voices in taking the billionaire class to task just because of inane litmus tests on Muh Conflict. If that happens, all lefties will have proved is how myopic and self-sabotaging they really are.

Eh, this is one of the biggest issues of the moment, so yes, among this field I would say that the Progressive base in particular are looking for policies that differentiate the candidates. Did I say anything about Porter being primaried, ostracized or in any way even having her influence reduced, especially in areas of finance and banking in which she's been extremely effective? No. But the "progressive grassroots" has every right to not support her bid for Senate, she isn't owed their support certainly, so I'm a bit lost as to the reason for your post.

People have the right to support or not support whoever they want, but I'm going to call them myopic if they end up thumbing their nose at someone who would support their cause on 95% of actually actionable issues because she doesn't toe their preferred line on a largely symbolic one. If Lee was 30 years younger and capable of winning a D vs D runoff I guess I wouldn't mind people picking her over Porter based on this one issue, but those seem like pretty important differences here, certainly more so than their positions on a regional conflict the US has increasingly little influence over.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll be honest, as a native born Californian... This is the one state in which I'm just not chuffed for political talent or having a decent bench of progressive candidates. We'll always have that here, so I'd argue this is exactly where we can more than afford to be picky. You're really just cutting straws for your, I presume, preferred candidate.

If it becomes Schiff v. Porter and Lee supporters abstain or something then we can revisit this.

But hey, I say all this as someone who had a Katie Porter signature a few months back. The AIPAC stuff really did bother me, even before all this other stuff broke out, so...

California is a state with a stacked progressive bench, sure, but it's also a state with a shrewd Democratic establishment that knows how to say just the right things to just the right people (unlike the NYDP which seems to rely entirely on brute force and complacency). The idea that we can just take a gamble on this one and wait until 2030 is fantastical to me. If Schiff wins, he'll be in that seat for the next 30 years. And sure, he won't be as terrible as Feinstein, but it sure isn't the kind of paradigm shift I think we're both hoping for. I think it'd be a shame if that happened just because progressives were taken in by the fad of the moment and chose to go with the unelectable vanity candidate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's such a good troll endorsement.

lmao yeah. Reminds me of the infamous "Eric" endorsement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, this crisis is Lee's best and probably only chance to get into the top two. Porter is a squish on I/P and if it becomes a major campaign issue, she's in trouble.

But make no mistake, in a Schiff vs. Lee race that hinges on I/P, Lee is getting DESTROYED.

Yeah, that's the thing. Porter is the progressive who can win, and actually represent California for decades to come. Lee is the vote that feels good to the average leftist's heart and accomplishes nothing otherwise.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I decided to fill in the bubble for Porter. Was hoping Lee's campaign would go somewhere but it didn't. Schiff's running a garbage campaign and I don't want a "hey guys Trump hates me" Senator. I convinced the mother- and siblings-in-law to vote for Porter too.

Welcome to Team Effective Progressives, comrade!

[Antonio the Sixth]

F**king hell. A once in a generation opportunity to advance progressive power in the Senate and we blew it. And congrats California Republicans for blowing your shot at stopping Schiff too. You might have actually decided the race if Porter had made it through, but oh well.

In a way I'm glad the margin is so large, though. Won't have me agonizing over what-ifs.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do think Schiff played dirty in the primary but I don't see the point of Porter going all scorched earth now. She's young and if things pan out right she should have an opening to come back to the House soon enough, but antagonizing the Dem establishment so directly could make things harder for her going forward. And yeah, at the end of the day Schiff will probably be a fine Senator and a clear improvement over Feinstein.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do think Schiff played dirty in the primary but I don't see the point of Porter going all scorched earth now. She's young and if things pan out right she should have an opening to come back to the House soon enough, but antagonizing the Dem establishment so directly could make things harder for her going forward. And yeah, at the end of the day Schiff will probably be a fine Senator and a clear improvement over Feinstein.

How so? By running a better campaign than Porter?

Porter and Schiff started out basically neck and neck, the fact that Porter collapsed so badly is a sign of how weak her campaign is. That's her fault, not her opponents'.

This is kind of like saying that it's the Chiefs' "fault" that the 49ers lost the Super Bowl, the Chiefs won because they just played a better game.

By boosting Garvey's profile, obviously. Helping a Republican get on the ballot because he'll be easier to beat than a fellow Democrat is a dirty move, even if it makes perfect sense strategically.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do think Schiff played dirty in the primary but I don't see the point of Porter going all scorched earth now. She's young and if things pan out right she should have an opening to come back to the House soon enough, but antagonizing the Dem establishment so directly could make things harder for her going forward. And yeah, at the end of the day Schiff will probably be a fine Senator and a clear improvement over Feinstein.

How so? By running a better campaign than Porter?

Porter and Schiff started out basically neck and neck, the fact that Porter collapsed so badly is a sign of how weak her campaign is. That's her fault, not her opponents'.

This is kind of like saying that it's the Chiefs' "fault" that the 49ers lost the Super Bowl, the Chiefs won because they just played a better game.

By boosting Garvey's profile, obviously. Helping a Republican get on the ballot because he'll be easier to beat than a fellow Democrat is a dirty move, even if it makes perfect sense strategically.

That's the fault of the stupid California voting system. As long as that's in place candidates need to do what's best strategically under that system.

If some football coach doesn't like an NFL rule, that doesn't mean he can just have his team ignore it and instead play how he'd prefer the rules be until that rule is changed.

I don't give a sh*t about the NFL and I don't think anyone else in this thread does.

Of course the rules are the rules and I never said Schiff broke them. It's still playing dirty. If you don't see it you're just being obtuse.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do think Schiff played dirty in the primary but I don't see the point of Porter going all scorched earth now. She's young and if things pan out right she should have an opening to come back to the House soon enough, but antagonizing the Dem establishment so directly could make things harder for her going forward. And yeah, at the end of the day Schiff will probably be a fine Senator and a clear improvement over Feinstein.

How so? By running a better campaign than Porter?

Porter and Schiff started out basically neck and neck, the fact that Porter collapsed so badly is a sign of how weak her campaign is. That's her fault, not her opponents'.

This is kind of like saying that it's the Chiefs' "fault" that the 49ers lost the Super Bowl, the Chiefs won because they just played a better game.

By boosting Garvey's profile, obviously. Helping a Republican get on the ballot because he'll be easier to beat than a fellow Democrat is a dirty move, even if it makes perfect sense strategically.

That's the fault of the stupid California voting system. As long as that's in place candidates need to do what's best strategically under that system.

If some football coach doesn't like an NFL rule, that doesn't mean he can just have his team ignore it and instead play how he'd prefer the rules be until that rule is changed.

I don't give a sh*t about the NFL and I don't think anyone else in this thread does.

Of course the rules are the rules and I never said Schiff broke them. It's still playing dirty. If you don't see it you're just being obtuse.

It's called an analogy.

I just think what Porter is doing now is far worse and way more childish than anything Schiff did. She's also getting called out by Democrats everywhere (see my SoS above), and there seems to be a bit of a meme developing comparing her to some obviously drunk woman at a traffic stop.

...and she seems to be doubling down which makes her look even worse:
https://twitter.com/katieporteroc/status/1765621658382168271

Yes, this response by Porter is what I was criticizing, if you're able to read my post beyond an out-of-context snippet. Doesn't take away the fact that Schiff isn't 100% blameless here.