Opinion of Katie Porter

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Recently downgraded from FF to HP sadly.

[Lambsbread]

I'm upset with her rhetoric in the wake of her disastrous Senate campaign for sure, so I'm not voting. However, she has undoubtedly been one of the best members of Congress since she got there and it's a damn shame she's giving up her House seat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm upset with her rhetoric in the wake of her disastrous Senate campaign for sure, so I'm not voting. However, she has undoubtedly been one of the best members of Congress since she got there and it's a damn shame she's giving up her House seat.

How so? She seems like a really standard typical Democrat.

[Lambsbread]

I'm upset with her rhetoric in the wake of her disastrous Senate campaign for sure, so I'm not voting. However, she has undoubtedly been one of the best members of Congress since she got there and it's a damn shame she's giving up her House seat.

How so? She seems like a really standard typical Democrat.

I appreciate her willingness to take corporations and their representatives to task during hearings. I get some people think the whiteboard thing is cringe and she definitely has a certain Karen energy to her, but she's smart as hell and when she's actually doing her job, she's been a great voice for a lot of progressive positions without kowtowing to the online left.

[President Johnson]

Definite HP after turning into a sore loser.

I always thought she was kind of overrated before. Even besides Schiff, California would have had a huge reservoir of talented Democrats to make a great senator, including progressives such as Nanette Barragan.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm upset with her rhetoric in the wake of her disastrous Senate campaign for sure, so I'm not voting. However, she has undoubtedly been one of the best members of Congress since she got there and it's a damn shame she's giving up her House seat.

How so? She seems like a really standard typical Democrat.

I appreciate her willingness to take corporations and their representatives to task during hearings. I get some people think the whiteboard thing is cringe and she definitely has a certain Karen energy to her, but she's smart as hell and when she's actually doing her job, she's been a great voice for a lot of progressive positions without kowtowing to the online left.

She doesn't really take them to task though, she just rehearses speeches with her whiteboard and then fishes for talking points.

She has never passed any bills or had any actual impact in committee, nor has she ever succeeded at reaching across the aisle.

To use an example of a progressive, I am no fan of Ro Khanna, but I think he makes way more of an effort to try and actually get stuff done or at least have an impact on legislation under consideration.

[Beet]

She's a goodie.

California politics *is* rigged, as the state is too big for anyone not already elected statewide to run a statewide campaign, and so what ends up happening is the head honchos end up anointing some uninspiring party hack who cruises their way to inevitable victory. And hence we get a slew of uninspiring politicians and waste the Democrats' biggest potential talent pool.

Plus, the top two primary system gives the state's minority GOP a way outsized amount of influence in elections, whereas normally a state where the national party has made such little attempt to appeal to its people, the state party would have zero influence. All in all, a huge disservice to the people of California.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't dislike her, but her Senate campaign was a mess and a waste that now jeopardizes her House seat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

HP

I respected her a lot during her pre-2023 House tenure as she struck me as someone who was rather fearless and there to actually try to get things done while holding Wall Street’s feet to the fire whenever possible, but I was also always a bit weary of her due to the unconfirmed rumors about how she treated her staff (which I continue to hope weren’t true for the staffers’ sakes).  However, she became a HP to me back in early-to-mid 2023 (I want to say it was March, but that feels too early) when she was singing Netanyahu’s praises and trying to paint him as some great champion of democracy.  Anyone who is such a bootlicker for Netanyahu’s regime is simply unfit for office.  I don’t know if she flip-flopped later, but that was unforgivable.  I switched my (admittedly irrelevant) support to Schiff over this.  He’s pro-Israel in the context of its war with Hamas, but he’s not a soulless Netanyahu apologist either.

Netanyahu is a corrupt wannabe dictator with no beliefs except in whatever he thinks will help him get more short-term power and has stacked his government with fascists and proud racists who are only not committing genocide against the Palestinians because they know they’d never come close to getting away with it.  Beyond which, the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank remains a crime against humanity.  

The whole election rigging business is disgusting, dangerous, and pathetic.  The one good thing is it means Porter probably killed her career.  She’s proven herself dangerously unfit for office.  On a different note, while I don’t like Dave Min, I think the incomplete election results actually suggest voters may not care about his DUI nearly as much as had been assumed and Trump will hurt Baugh a lot here.  I actually think the race for her House seat is still Tilt D (closer to Lean D than Tilt R) as opposed to Lean D with Porter.

[Sir Mohamed]

HP.

She was a FF on my books before, even though I voted for Schiff and was supporting him from the start. Lately turned into a HP. While before I would have been fine with her winning, now I'm really glad she not only lost, but didn't even make it to November. Not to mention she possibly helped the GOP winning her House seat.

[Rat]

Unpopular opinion, but her whiteboard schtick is corny and cringe, and clearly just an effort to build her brand and get attention.

FF overall, though.

[John Dule]

My opinion of her has gone down, but I still think she was the best option in this primary. This incident has made me care much less that she lost though.

[Independents for Nihilism]

Never liked her, always thought she came off as more interested in grandstanding than governing. I don't blame her for being frustrated that one of her opponents boosted another to keep her out of the runoff, but if she had run a better campaign that wouldn't have mattered.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I'm upset with her rhetoric in the wake of her disastrous Senate campaign for sure, so I'm not voting. However, she has undoubtedly been one of the best members of Congress since she got there and it's a damn shame she's giving up her House seat.

How so? She seems like a really standard typical Democrat.

I appreciate her willingness to take corporations and their representatives to task during hearings. I get some people think the whiteboard thing is cringe and she definitely has a certain Karen energy to her, but she's smart as hell and when she's actually doing her job, she's been a great voice for a lot of progressive positions without kowtowing to the online left.

I always respected how good of a speaker she was, and how creative she was at some of the congressional hearings. Using the whiteboard, or making a game of jeopardy is sort of way to help engage normal folks wathcing on Twitter or TikTok with politics.l

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

FF

[politicallefty]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Student of Elizabeth Warren’s.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

This is such an absurd and counterproductive attitude from Democrats. The idea that any structural critique of the US political system should be left to the MAGA crowd is frankly a huge part of its appeal. Because the US political system is rigged and an increasing number of people intuitively recognize that, but if the only account they get for how it's rigged is some bullsh*t about Dominion voting machines or undocumented immigrants voting, then that's the narrative they're going to run with.

[The Mikado]

Abandoning a swing House seat that is now going to be open and subject to a really hard campaign to hold in order to run a quixotic Senate bid against someone who will in all likelihood have the exact same voting record in the Senate is incredibly selfish.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Ultimately a normie Dem with a taste for performative Elizabeth Warren-isms and a horrible streak as a sore loser. HP, but a fairly minor one.

[politicallefty]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

This is such an absurd and counterproductive attitude from Democrats. The idea that any structural critique of the US political system should be left to the MAGA crowd is frankly a huge part of its appeal. Because the US political system is rigged and an increasing number of people intuitively recognize that, but if the only account they get for how it's rigged is some bullsh*t about Dominion voting machines or undocumented immigrants voting, then that's the narrative they're going to run with.

You're not going to get any arguments from me about the system itself. There's very little I wouldn't like to change. However, I do think using that specific word was very reckless considering everything else. There's very little that can be done about campaign finance when you look at the composition of the Supreme Court. As for legislation to improve the system (that doesn't require amending the Constitution or reforming the judiciary), every Democrat in Congress is on board. It's just that two years ago, two Senators decided that the filibuster was more important than the most significant voting rights package since the VRA itself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

This is such an absurd and counterproductive attitude from Democrats. The idea that any structural critique of the US political system should be left to the MAGA crowd is frankly a huge part of its appeal. Because the US political system is rigged and an increasing number of people intuitively recognize that, but if the only account they get for how it's rigged is some bullsh*t about Dominion voting machines or undocumented immigrants voting, then that's the narrative they're going to run with.

You're not going to get any arguments from me about the system itself. There's very little I wouldn't like to change. However, I do think using that specific word was very reckless considering everything else. There's very little that can be done about campaign finance when you look at the composition of the Supreme Court. As for legislation to improve the system (that doesn't require amending the Constitution or reforming the judiciary), every Democrat in Congress is on board. It's just that two years ago, two Senators decided that the filibuster was more important than the most significant voting rights package since the VRA itself.

So you agree with the substance of Porter's claim, and your only issue is the specific word she used?? Sorry, I just don't get it. Words aren't magic, they're just tools. The same word can be used in good or in bad ways, depending on context. And the idea that one Senatorial candidate using one specific word is going to help the MAGA lunatics is ludicrous. What helps the MAGA crowd is the massive amount of institutional support they get from the GOP and GOP-associated networks, and the incompetence of Democrats which allow the former to gain power.

I'm so tired with this pathological obsession with language policing the left keeps falling into.

[politicallefty]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

This is such an absurd and counterproductive attitude from Democrats. The idea that any structural critique of the US political system should be left to the MAGA crowd is frankly a huge part of its appeal. Because the US political system is rigged and an increasing number of people intuitively recognize that, but if the only account they get for how it's rigged is some bullsh*t about Dominion voting machines or undocumented immigrants voting, then that's the narrative they're going to run with.

You're not going to get any arguments from me about the system itself. There's very little I wouldn't like to change. However, I do think using that specific word was very reckless considering everything else. There's very little that can be done about campaign finance when you look at the composition of the Supreme Court. As for legislation to improve the system (that doesn't require amending the Constitution or reforming the judiciary), every Democrat in Congress is on board. It's just that two years ago, two Senators decided that the filibuster was more important than the most significant voting rights package since the VRA itself.

So you agree with the substance of Porter's claim, and your only issue is the specific word she used?? Sorry, I just don't get it. Words aren't magic, they're just tools. The same word can be used in good or in bad ways, depending on context. And the idea that one Senatorial candidate using one specific word is going to help the MAGA lunatics is ludicrous. What helps the MAGA crowd is the massive amount of institutional support they get from the GOP and GOP-associated networks, and the incompetence of Democrats which allow the former to gain power.

I'm so tired with this pathological obsession with language policing the left keeps falling into.

No, I don't agree with her claims. She lost fair and square. Schiff easily beat both Porter and Lee combined. However, it certainly didn't hurt to have a massive financial advantage in the biggest and most expensive state in the country.

I also think you're reading way too much into my comments. I absolutely do not count myself among those that want police every little aspect of language. The last thing anyone on the left needs to do is to feed into right-wing narratives though. We do have a system to seriously fix and improve, but using Trump's words will not further that cause one bit.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

This is such an absurd and counterproductive attitude from Democrats. The idea that any structural critique of the US political system should be left to the MAGA crowd is frankly a huge part of its appeal. Because the US political system is rigged and an increasing number of people intuitively recognize that, but if the only account they get for how it's rigged is some bullsh*t about Dominion voting machines or undocumented immigrants voting, then that's the narrative they're going to run with.

You're not going to get any arguments from me about the system itself. There's very little I wouldn't like to change. However, I do think using that specific word was very reckless considering everything else. There's very little that can be done about campaign finance when you look at the composition of the Supreme Court. As for legislation to improve the system (that doesn't require amending the Constitution or reforming the judiciary), every Democrat in Congress is on board. It's just that two years ago, two Senators decided that the filibuster was more important than the most significant voting rights package since the VRA itself.

So you agree with the substance of Porter's claim, and your only issue is the specific word she used?? Sorry, I just don't get it. Words aren't magic, they're just tools. The same word can be used in good or in bad ways, depending on context. And the idea that one Senatorial candidate using one specific word is going to help the MAGA lunatics is ludicrous. What helps the MAGA crowd is the massive amount of institutional support they get from the GOP and GOP-associated networks, and the incompetence of Democrats which allow the former to gain power.

I'm so tired with this pathological obsession with language policing the left keeps falling into.

No, I don't agree with her claims. She lost fair and square. Schiff easily beat both Porter and Lee combined. However, it certainly didn't hurt to have a massive financial advantage in the biggest and most expensive state in the country.

I also think you're reading way too much into my comments. I absolutely do not count myself among those that want police every little aspect of language. The last thing anyone on the left needs to do is to feed into right-wing narratives though. We do have a system to seriously fix and improve, but using Trump's words will not further that cause one bit.

I just. I agree that her concession (if you can even call it that) speech was ungracious and frankly just a bad career move, but you equated it to the guy who fomented an insurrection to prevent the certification of an election he lost. These situations are simply not comparable. And the structural factors that weighed against Porter and allowed Schiff to win are things that need to be discussed one way or the other.

[politicallefty]

I strongly supported her, but no Democrat should ever use Trump's language when referring to fair and free elections. I abstained from the poll itself.

This is such an absurd and counterproductive attitude from Democrats. The idea that any structural critique of the US political system should be left to the MAGA crowd is frankly a huge part of its appeal. Because the US political system is rigged and an increasing number of people intuitively recognize that, but if the only account they get for how it's rigged is some bullsh*t about Dominion voting machines or undocumented immigrants voting, then that's the narrative they're going to run with.

You're not going to get any arguments from me about the system itself. There's very little I wouldn't like to change. However, I do think using that specific word was very reckless considering everything else. There's very little that can be done about campaign finance when you look at the composition of the Supreme Court. As for legislation to improve the system (that doesn't require amending the Constitution or reforming the judiciary), every Democrat in Congress is on board. It's just that two years ago, two Senators decided that the filibuster was more important than the most significant voting rights package since the VRA itself.

So you agree with the substance of Porter's claim, and your only issue is the specific word she used?? Sorry, I just don't get it. Words aren't magic, they're just tools. The same word can be used in good or in bad ways, depending on context. And the idea that one Senatorial candidate using one specific word is going to help the MAGA lunatics is ludicrous. What helps the MAGA crowd is the massive amount of institutional support they get from the GOP and GOP-associated networks, and the incompetence of Democrats which allow the former to gain power.

I'm so tired with this pathological obsession with language policing the left keeps falling into.

No, I don't agree with her claims. She lost fair and square. Schiff easily beat both Porter and Lee combined. However, it certainly didn't hurt to have a massive financial advantage in the biggest and most expensive state in the country.

I also think you're reading way too much into my comments. I absolutely do not count myself among those that want police every little aspect of language. The last thing anyone on the left needs to do is to feed into right-wing narratives though. We do have a system to seriously fix and improve, but using Trump's words will not further that cause one bit.

I just. I agree that her concession (if you can even call it that) speech was ungracious and frankly just a bad career move, but you equated it to the guy who fomented an insurrection to prevent the certification of an election he lost. These situations are simply not comparable. And the structural factors that weighed against Porter and allowed Schiff to win are things that need to be discussed one way or the other.

It's not that I was equating her thoughts with his, but that word ("rig" or "rigged") is very loaded in this country right now. I can understand her disappointment and anger, but she's not exactly old. There is no need to burn bridges when you're 50 and a prominent politician in the state. If she feels the system isn't working, she needs to run against it. To start, the top-two system is awful and inherently flawed (though I doubt a party primary would've done her any good with Lee running).