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

[Not Me, Us]

I really like Barbara Lee, but we need less elderly people in positions of power. America’s biggest problems stem from the fact that geriatrics refuse to step aside and let younger people take charge. I don’t know how true the allegations against Port are, but even if they are true, I could never support someone who is almost 80 years old unless they’re literally the only option like Biden. Except Bernie of course.

[Not Me, Us]

I really like Barbara Lee, but we need less elderly people in positions of power. America’s biggest problems stem from the fact that geriatrics refuse to step aside and let younger people take charge. I don’t know how true the allegations against Port are, but even if they are true, I could never support someone who is almost 80 years old unless they’re literally the only option like Biden. Except Bernie of course.

As much as this is true. I don't get how the "representation" argument for young people, which I generally agree with, isn't true for both Black people and women, especially in the Senate?

Tbch, I think the geriatric problem is inextricable from the problem of race and lack of diversity. I wish they didn't have to be pitted against each other here, but when it comes down to it, it's more troubling to me there are currently 0 Black women in the U.S. Senate than the average age, because the latter can be explained unfortunately in part by youth apathy, while the former is almost wholly consequential of social injustice and oppression.

In my opinion, there's no valid reason why states like Maryland, Virginia and Delaware don't at least have 1 Black senator and at the very least a Black woman as senator. It's 0 for 6 on both fronts.

Those are Dem-leaning states with high Black populations. But yet, all of the senators from those states are old/older White men.

Dem establishment supported Van Hollen over Edwards in 2016. Although I imagine Lisa Blunt Rochester would be a/the frontrunner for the next Delaware Senate vacancy.

I've heard rumors than Rochester will go for governor instead, though that may only be a backup if Carper doesn't retire.

Black women do seem next in line for Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts senate vacancies too.

I don't know about Connecticut, Hayes has been a consistent underperformer at the House level and there are plenty of other Democrats who could give her a run for her money. Pressley has Massachusetts on lock though, and Underwood would be good in Illinois.

[Not Me, Us]

I didn't realize until recently that Porter endorsed Nina Turner.

I am officially retracting my endorsement for Porter and endorsing Schiff.

A four year old, irrelevant endorsement for a congressional candidate from Cleveland is enough for you to switch? Not that it really matters, but that's a little odd to me.

[Not Me, Us]

Honestly, I do respect how shameless Lee is when it comes to the age question. Despite that, Porter is my pick, electing an almost 80 year old to a six year term is just insane to me.

[Not Me, Us]

I think it's clear Barbara Lee is suffering poor name regonition( she didn't have the same media presence like Schiff and Porter during the trump era) as well as voters being concerned about her age given what's going on with Feinstein.

Yup, that's a fairly accurate observation. Perhaps she'd so herself a favor and pledge just to serve a single 6-year terms. Whether that's what people looking out for is another question though.

The R-candidates even more suffer from low name ID. There's a small GOP bench anyway and the few better known ones are staying out because nobody wants to end up as sacraficial lamb or not even advance to the GE.

The problem with a one term pledge, at least from my perspective, is that it's a de facto admission that you're denying your constituents the benefits that come with seniority, which is a huge part of effectiveness in Congress. I like Barbara Lee, but Katie Porter would have a virtually identical voting record with a potential for decades more seniority. If I were a California voter, I would take that into account.

[Not Me, Us]

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.

Why settle for a candidate who will support our cause 95% of the time when we can get one who supports our cause more, especially on such an important issue? This is not a seat where there is any reason to really favor pragmatism or electability when choosing a candidate, and Lee is better on the issues. I don't hate Porter, but if progressives can't have some standards in California of all places, where can we?