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).
Sure, as I said I agree this was a bad speech. I just don't think it's bad because she used a specific word that another politician happens to use in a completely different context. And I don't think her doing so has any concrete repercussions on the overall state of democracy in the US.
Poll
