Democrats trying to unseat each other III

[lpetrich]

AIPAC's Super PAC Set to Lose First Race of 2024 Despite Record Spending, but Reveals a Major Win - U.S. News - Haaretz.com

The Super PAC spent $4.6 million in attack ads against the congressional candidate Dave Min, a Democrat from California, who is poised to win the seat. They later revealed that they also gave $5 million to the Super PAC of Senate candidate Adam Schiff, who claimed victory.

Ha'aretz is an Israeli newspaper.

Dave Min advances to general election in battle for Katie Porter’s seat - POLITICO - "The race between Democrats in the swing Orange County district was expensive and acrimonious."

He’ll face off with Republican Scott Baugh, a longtime GOP official in the area who came close to beating Porter in the swing district two years ago.

Min said he was “deeply humbled and grateful for the support from voters” in his victory over Weiss, a political activist and first-time candidate.

“This victory is not just about winning an election, it is about the future we are collectively shaping. It’s about reclaiming the House for Democrats and Orange County families. It’s about rejecting the divisive, Trump-supporting MAGA politics that our opponent, Scott Baugh, represents,” Min said in a statement.

Weiss, on social media, said she called Min “and pledged to do all I can to keep [California’s 47th district] blue.”

Why did AIPAC support JW? "The pro-Israel group’s super PAC spent at least $4.7 million against Min for reasons that remain somewhat inscrutable, since Min was not a vocal critic of Israel in public."

"The general election matchup between Min and Baugh is poised to be one of the marquee races in the country. It is one of the few contests in California where Democrats will be playing defense in a toss-up seat."

 

[lpetrich]

Now for the race for California's Class I Senate seat. By year, the Senate classes are I: 6n+2, II: 6n+4, III: 6n (+6), and every state has two separate ones out of these three.

This seat was held for a long time by Dianne Feinstein, from 1992 to her death half a year ago. In the last few years of her life, it was very evident that she was mentally deteriorating, but she refused to give up her seat. CA Gov Gavin Newsom appointed Laphonza Butler as her replacement, but she decided not to continue in the Senate.

This election has an odd format: the ordinary Senate election and the special Senate election, the sort done to replace politicians who died or who quit or who were expelled. These two elections have the same candidates, and one effectively votes twice in that election. That's something called cumulative voting, though it's usually done with more votes per voter.

Three House Democrats were competing for this seat: Adam Schiff, 63, Katie Porter, 50, and Barbara Lee, 77. On the Republican side is Steve Garvey, 75, a former major-league baseball player. Several other D's and R's were also competing.

 

[lpetrich]

Adam Schiff on X: "Among the two leading candidates for U.S. Senate — there are two very different visions for California.
Watch our latest ad ⤵︎
(vid link)" / X
then
Katie Porter on X: "Adam Schiff knows he will lose to me in November. That's what this brazenly cynical ad is about—furthering his own political career, boxing out qualified Democratic women candidates, and boosting a Republican candidate to do it. We need honest leadership, not political games." / X

Adam Schiff’s “Brazenly Cynical” Campaign Strategy Boosts a Republican | The Nation - "The California Senate candidate’s latest TV ad could help a Republican elbow aside fellow Democrat Katie Porter and Barbara Lee in an open primary on March 5."

AS wanted to run against SG rather than KP or BL, so he advertised SG as a good R.

Garvey’s Senate campaign has been a bumbling affair, in which he has struggled to raise funds and turned in cringe-worthy debate performances—so much so that the Los Angeles Times opined after a January debate that “Steve Garvey was less a heavy hitter on Monday night’s Senate debate stage and more often a punchline.” He’s tried to capitalize on his baseball background, but polling shows that voters aren’t impressed. Indeed, an analysis of fresh data collected by the University of Southern California’s California Elections and Policy Poll found that “Garvey is not winning Dodgers fans’ votes, suggesting his strategy of emphasizing his baseball biography is not working.”

Other Democrats have done that.

In 2012, when Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was facing a tough reelection race, she started running ads before the GOP Senate primary that played up controversial US Representative Todd Akin. With an assist from McCaskill, Akin won the primary. Her scheme paid off when he infamously suggested that women who were victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant, and she easily dispatched him in November. Since then, the strategy has been employed with some frequency by Democrats seeking to ensure that they face extremists who are perceived to be the least electable Republicans in fall races. The approach has drawn significant criticism, however, from some Democrats who say it’s dangerous to boost MAGA Republicans who are aligned with former president Donald Trump, and who also argue that this sort of crossover meddling undermines confidence in the political process.

USC-CSU-CEPPoll.pdf
AS: 25%, SG, KP: 15%, BL: 7%, others less

 

[lpetrich]

Katie Porter decided to respond in kind:
Christopher Cadelago on X: "A big new twist in the Senate race in California: Katie Porter is running digital ads trying to boost Eric Early over fellow Republican Steve Garvey.
Porter’s ads call Early “way too MAGA for California.” (link)" / X

Why Democrats spent millions to boost Republican rival in California primary - The Washington Post - "Rep. Adam Schiff and his allies are spending $11 million in the all-party primary to try to elevate a GOP candidate and box out Rep. Katie Porter from the general election"

The ads argue that Republican Steve Garvey — a congenial former pro baseball player for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres who voted twice for Donald Trump but won’t say if he will do so again — is too conservative for California and highlight his recent surge, in an apparent effort to consolidate support for him on the right.

The seeming intent is to boost Garvey past Rep. Katie Porter, whom Schiff and his backers would prefer to avoid facing come November in this left-leaning state.

KP's response:

In one of those spots aimed at catching the attention of Republican viewers, Early is described as the “100 percent pro-Trump candidate” who opposes abortion, “loves the Second Amendment” and is “way more dangerous than Steve Garvey.”

...
In an interview, Porter called it “disingenuous” for Schiff to claim Garvey is “the MAGA threat” as she noted some of Garvey’s positions — such as his opposition to a nationwide abortion ban and his pledge to certify the election results if President Biden wins reelection.

“Steve Garvey is never going to be California’s next senator, and everyone knows it,” Porter said. “Representative Schiff is giving the GOP a gift, and Steve Garvey is the bow on top of the package.”

Then on how SG barely campaigned.

 

[lpetrich]

Schiff cheapened himself by boosting Garvey in Senate race - Los Angeles Times

"The Burbank Democrat may have dug some potholes in the high road he normally travels."

"Certainly many young supporters of Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, the potential November rival Schiff feared most, are ticked off at his tactics and are likely to long remember."

Porter accuses Schiff of ‘brazenly cynical’ ad ‘boosting’ Republican Garvey | The Hill

 

[lpetrich]

California Senate primary: Democrats Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee are in a way weirder race than voters imagined.
Each of them different kinds of Democrats:

Oakland’s Barbara Lee was the longtime activist, a stalwart of grassroots Black radicalism who had volunteered with the Panthers and worked on Shirley Chisholm’s presidential run, the only member of Congress brave enough to vote against the congressional authorization that kicked off the calamitous war on terror after 9/11. Orange County’s Katie Porter was the minivan-mom technocrat, a law professor who had studied under Elizabeth Warren and who gained widespread recognition by grilling profit-hungry financiers. And Burbank’s Adam Schiff was the face of the anti-Trump resistance, a moderate big-money man and protégé of Nancy Pelosi who rose to national prominence as a Trump impeachment manager in 2020 and again through the televised Jan. 6 hearings in 2022.

Then noting Dianne Feinstein's more than 30 years in her Senate seat, and in her last years being a relatively conservative Democrat. "So the battle for a replacement promised to be a proxy fight over the future of American liberalism, in a state that had earned a reputation for being a beacon of progressivism in the United States."

But the grand battle of ideas and coalitions never materialized. Instead, the election has been swamped by huge money and effectively predetermined—or at least heavily influenced—by behind-the-curtain machinations from a moderate old guard. There has been no great frisson of ideas, no proud democratic exercise, no pathbreaking consensus. The biggest question going into Tuesday now is whether the airheaded Steve Garvey, a former Dodgers star and Republican running without any real platform, will skate through to the general; without his ever running a TV ad of his own, polling has him finishing, incomprehensibly, in first.

The race to succeed DiFi started when she was still alive. In 2021, Kamala Harris quit her Senate seat to become Vice President, and Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Alex Padilla, a Hispanic man. That pissed off a lot of black and female Democratic activists, and GN promised to appoint a black woman to succeed DiFi. Barbara Lee was an often-mentioned candidate.

 

[lpetrich]

Enter Nancy Pelosi.

It was no secret that Pelosi had long wanted a bigger leadership role in the Democratic Party for Schiff, who had also become one of her most loyal soldiers. (She had lobbied hard for him to become California attorney general in 2021.) As Rebecca Traister put it in New York magazine, writing about the California Senate race, as soon as Schiff announced he’d run for the seat, “Pelosi came out fast and hard in her endorsement of him, detonating a political bombshell that has had a huge blast radius.” (That blast, along with “fundraising and ceaseless arm-twisting in California and Washington,” Traister wrote, “was key to how he has piled up his heap of political and union endorsements.”)

GN did not want to seem like he was appointing both of CA's Senators.

Newsom would pick a caretaker — not Barbara Lee — for California Senate seat - POLITICO - "The California governor argued it would be unfair to the other candidates running if he selected Rep. Barbara Lee to serve in the U.S. Senate."

Even though she checked a lot of boxes: she is a black woman with long service in the House, including in leadership roles.

Barbara Lee on X: "I am troubled by the Governor’s remarks. ..." / X

I am troubled by the Governor’s remarks. The idea that a Black woman should be appointed only as a caretaker to simply check a box is insulting to countless Black women across this country who have carried the Democratic Party to victory election after election.

There are currently no Black women serving in the Senate. Since 1789, there have only been two Black woman Senators, who have served a total of 10 years.

The perspective of Black women in the US Senate is sorely needed—and needed for more than a few months. Governor Newsom knows this, which is why he made the pledge in the first place.

If the Governor intends to keep his promise and appoint a Black woman to the Senate, the people of California deserve the best possible person for that job. Not a token appointment.

Black women deserve more than a participation trophy. We need a seat at the table.

She was not alone.

Column: Newsom's cynical pitch: Hey, you there, Black woman. Can you keep Feinstein's seat warm?

 

[lpetrich]

Then,

Newsom immediately reversed his decision, telling the Los Angeles Times that if anyone he appointed “wants to seek a full term in 2024, then she is free to do so.” (A San Francisco Chronicle columnist ridiculed Newsom for “issuing bold statements that crumble under the slightest pressure, and pursuing grand visions without much regard to details.”)

Meanwhile, the pressure on Newsom to pick Lee was mounting. The Congressional Black Caucus sent him a letter requesting it. Lee did a media blitz calling for it too. Three days after Feinstein died, Newsom found his replacement in a Democratic fundraiser who lived and was even registered to vote in Maryland: Laphonza Butler.

Then, just 18 days after her swearing-in, Butler let slip to the New York Times that she would not be seeking reelection.

That meant that AS could campaign against her.

AS had long been a centrist Blue-Dog corporate Democrat, eagerly collecting bribes, er, campaign contributions from the likes of Big Oil and Big Pharma, calling for entitlement reform and spending cuts well into the Obama years, and having a super tough on crime record as a prosecutor. But when campaigning, he tried to portray himself as very progressive, a refuser of corporate PAC money and a supporter of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

He had $35 million to spend on the race, a result of Nancy Pelosi appointing him a Trump impeachment manager. That made him a big political celebrity and he raised a lot of money off of being such a great opponent of that former President.

This fact has not gone unnoticed by Schiff’s competitors in the Senate race. “We all know the facts about how the impeachment managers were chosen,” Porter told Traister at New York magazine, in about as succinct an explanation as one can muster. “They were chosen by Speaker Pelosi. There was not an application process or a committee structure for that. I certainly would have been delighted to serve if asked.”

Unchecked – HarperCollins - "The Untold Story Behind Congress's Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump"

Unchecked weaves a vivid narrative of how House Democrats under the lead of a cautious speaker, Nancy Pelosi, hesitated for months to stand up to Trump—and then pulled punches in their effort to oust him in a misguided effort to protect themselves politically. What they left on the cutting room floor would come back to haunt them, as Republicans seized on their missteps to whip an uneasy GOP rank-and-file into line behind Donald Trump, abandoning their scruples to defend a president who some privately believed had indeed abused his power.

Even after Trump incited a mob to violently attack the Capitol—a day the authors recount in minute-by-minute, stunning detail — Democrats pressured their own investigators to forego a thorough investigation in the name of safeguarding the Biden agenda. And Republicans, fearful of repelling a base they needed for re-election, missed their best moment to turn their backs on a leader they secretly agreed was destructive to democracy.

According to that book, AS was one of the strongest opponents of the impeachment efforts.

Then about AS supporting Steve Garvey as an opponent, mentioning SG much more than SG himself did.

Schiff, who famously said that “those who patronize and subsidize Fox News are culpable for the lies they tell and for the damage they do to our democracy,” has even spent lavishly on Garvey ads that appeared on Fox News.

...
The list of people who believe that Garvey can win was basically zero going into this, and yet, California is littered right now with campaign literature saying that, indeed, he can.

 

[lpetrich]

Katie "Porter’s penchant for butting heads is her greatest strength and biggest liability." Like her confrontations of bankers and military contractors, and also with Democratic officials in her home state, including NP.

She angered the California consultant class by endorsing Elizabeth Warren over Kamala Harris in 2020, an out-of-state betrayal that led to a falling-out with Bearstar Strategies, the consultancy that helped Porter run her lightning rod 2018 campaign. (Bearstar has since signed on with Schiff.)

So she refused to support Californians' favorite daughter.

She also displeased the Israel lobby. Her praising of PM Ben Netanyahu and her weaselly statements on a possible Gaza ceasefire were not enough for AIPAC and DMFI, and those lobbies supported AS instead.
Rob Pyers on X: "Cryptocurrency SuperPAC FairShake drops another $3.2 million on media buys opposing Katie Porter, upping their cumulative spending against her to over $10 million.
With this latest buy, total #CASen IE spending has surpassed $20 million." / X

 

[lpetrich]

Barbara

Lee doesn’t have a Republican to elevate, and she certainly doesn’t have the backing of the Israel lobbies. In a callback to her career-making vote in 2001, against the bill that kicked off the United States’ calamitous war on terror, Lee has boldly called for a cease-fire. She has also boldly called for things that verge on the impractical, like a $50 minimum wage.

But there’s not a lot of money in taking brave stances on foreign policy. The issue has helped her, but only enough to keep her polling high enough to peel off progressive vote share from Porter.

Then her failure to get into House leadership even after heading some big caucuses.

"And she’s not great at cutthroat politicking." Like when Joe Crowley stepped down as Democratic Caucus Leader in 2018 after being primaried by AOC, BL ran for that position. Then Hakeem Jeffries ran for that position, even though he was a newcomer and not someone with long service like BL. Someone spread a rumor that BL helped AOC unseat JC, and that convinced enough people to change their votes. BL lost by 10 votes to HJ. “Pelosi held the knife, and Jeffries put it in.”

"Also, Lee hasn’t run a competitive race in years and has rarely appeared on TV. Her fundraising prowess has paled in comparison to that of her Southern California rivals."

After noting how marginal the Republican Party has become in California, and noting that Democrats boosting Republicans to shut out their rivals, "In February 2023, Pelosi went on MSNBC and claimed that the country needed a strong Republican Party. I guess this is one way to get there."

 

[lpetrich]

How did the vote turn out? With a little over half the votes counted, Steve Garvey won about 33%, Adam Schiff 32%, Katie Porter 15%, Barbara Lee 9%, Eric Early 5%, and the others around 1% or less.

It must be conceded that if BL dropped out of the race and supported KP, then KP may still not have gotten into the top two.

Barbara Lee on X: "My statement on California’s US Senate election results. (pic link)" / X

OAKLAND, CA - Following the AP calling Rep. Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey making the top two in the primary and special election, Congresswoman Barbara Lee released the following statement:

"I want to thank all of my supporters and voters, and all of the volunteers who made calls, knocked doors, and did amazing work on the ground to reach communities across the state. Our voices and values were heard loud and clear: Californians deserve a living wage, an economy that works for everyone, housing and healthcare as human rights, racial and economic equity, public safety for all communities and just climate action.

I was proud to run a grassroots, multicultural and multi-generational campaign that gave a voice to all those wanting to see true progressive change. Despite being heavily outspent by my opponents, our values never wavered. In every step of this campaign, we never backed down from our progressive vision, and worked relentlessly to build a coalition that represents communities that too often are not afforded a seat at the table.

We also sent a strong message on the urgency of calling for a permanent ceasefire and ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Killing over 30,000 civilians will never lead to peace and security for the Israelis or the Palestinians. The United States needs to be a leader for a pathway to peace and security in the Middle East and around the world.

As a Congressmember and a proud Californian, I will continue to deliver for my district and for California and look forward to working with our people-powered coalition to push our elected leaders to take bold action on ending gun violence, climate justice, defending our reproductive freedom, fixing and protecting our democracy and prioritizing the needs of working people-not big corporations or billionaires. We will continue to mobilize voters throughout the state and demand action for a better California and not settle for half-measures.

I congratulate my colleague, Rep. Adam Schiff on his victory in advancing in this race."

Very magnanimous.

I've quoted it in full because it's a big contrast to KP's response.

 

[lpetrich]

Katie Porter on X: "Please find a statement from me below. (pic link)" / X

Today, March 6, 2024, Katie Porter released the following statement:

"Rigged" means manipulated by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10 million+ on attack ads against me, including an ad rated "false" by an independent fact checker. That is dishonest means to manipulate an outcome. I said "rigged by billionaires" and our politics are-in fact- manipulated by big dark money. Defending democracy means calling that out. At no time have I ever undermined the vote count and election process in CA, which are beyond reproach.

I like her, but she seems like a sore loser.

Katie Porter on X: "Thank you to everyone ..." / X

Thank you to everyone who supported our campaign and voted to shake up the status quo in Washington. Because of you, we had the establishment running scared — withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election. (1/)

I also want to thank every person who supported us over the past six years. It's clear Californians are hungry for leaders who break the mold, can't be bought, and push for accountability in government and across our economy. And that's exactly what we as Americans deserve. (2/)

Special interests like politics as it is today because they control the politicians. As we’ve seen in this campaign, they spend millions to defeat someone who will dilute their influence and disrupt the status quo.

But take my word for it: I'll never stop fighting for you. (3/3)

What will she do next? Will she try to continue her political career? I would certainly like to see that. I'm disappointed that AOC has not taken up using whiteboards - KP uses them with great skill.

Her Twitter banner has this: "I díd not go to Washington to learn how to play by the rules. I went to Washington to rewrite them." I hope that this will be only a temporary setback.

 

[lpetrich]

Katie Porter pulled a Trump move after losing. Democrats are livid. - POLITICO - "The Orange County Democrat is facing a backlash within her own party for her response to a third-place finish."

Porter’s claim spurred an indirect rebuke from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who wrote that California’s vote was “not rigged.” And Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who formerly oversaw California voting as the state’s top elections official, called the notion “ridiculous” without naming Porter.

“It’s not rigged,” Padilla told POLITICO. “As the former secretary of state of California, I can assure you of the integrity of the elections and the results.”

...
On social media, self-identified Democratic voters — including some who said they had supported Porter — expressed alarm that she would insinuate the vote was manipulated.

The backlash was especially notable after a primary campaign in which Porter and other Democrats regularly condemned Trump as an authoritarian threat to democracy. Schiff made that case most forcefully, capitalizing on his fame as an anti-Trump antagonist. The former president repeatedly alleged without evidence that California’s elections are riddled with fraud.

Porter positioned herself as a scourge of moneyed interests that she says corrupt the political process. In addition to facing a spending deluge from the pro-Schiff PAC, Porter was bludgeoned by a cryptocurrency industry offensive.

 

[lpetrich]

Katie Porter Doubles Down on Claim Her Election Loss Was “Rigged” | Vanity Fair - "After losing the California Senate primary, the Democratic congresswoman employed somewhat Trumpian language to air out her grievances."

"That a Democratic lawmaker, and a particularly progressive one, would accuse her political adversaries of rigging an election is a curious choice."

"Facing Porter in a head-to-head general election would have produced a less certain November outcome for Schiff, who was endorsed early in the primary by Nancy Pelosi and most of California’s Democratic congressional delegation."

Katie Porter, a Rising Political Star, Falls Short in California Senate Race - The New York Times - "The California representative harnessed social media and her committee perch to build a following. But it wasn’t enough to survive a brutal Senate contest, and she has nowhere to go this election season."

In the final weeks of the campaign, a cryptocurrency super PAC spent millions on ads attacking Ms. Porter, who has supported more regulations on the industry and has rebuked various corporate leaders in congressional hearings. The ads called her a hypocrite for accepting corporate donations, which Ms. Porter disputed, and resurfaced accusations that she mistreated staff.

“Too many are more interested in being an elected official than actually doing anything to fix the problems that everyday people face,” she told her supporters in a brief concession speech. “That’s why special interests and billionaires spent close to $20 million attempting to keep me out of the Senate. Special interests and the ultrawealthy — they like politics as it is today.”

“You scared them, Katie!” someone in the audience shouted.

“We scared them,” Ms. Porter responded.

One of her supporters:

“I think Schiff was set up to be there,” said Larry Limoges, 51, as he waited for Ms. Porter to address the crowd. “The way he does politics is a lot like the way Republicans do politics. Instead of promoting the party, he promoted himself.”

 

[lpetrich]

Was AS's amplification of SG good strategy?

Some Democratic strategists said it was a smart gambit that would allow Democratic groups to redirect their money to battleground House races that they might have otherwise spent in a bruising intraparty Senate race. In an attempt to counter Mr. Schiff’s efforts, Ms. Porter’s campaign paid for online ads telling voters that another Republican, Eric Early, was the true conservative running for Senate.

KP was elected in the 2018 anti-Trump "blue wave" and she was re-elected in 2020 and 2022. She could have continued in her House seat.

Ms. Porter’s decision to run for Senate meant that she had to vacate her battleground district, which created an open seat that Democrats will try to keep this fall without an incumbent. It was a risk that left Democrats in her district feeling conflicted, torn between frustration that she left her seat vulnerable and a desire to see her profile continue to rise.
“I’m reluctant to criticize a woman for having aspirations, because we want to inspire, lift up and push up more women into leadership positions,” said Katrina Foley, the first Democratic woman to be elected to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. “I am also cognizant of the timing of things. We are in a more vulnerable place because of the Senate race.”

And Ms. Porter faces a looming question: What is next? She greeted supporters on her way out of the party on Tuesday, but she didn’t answer questions.

 

[lpetrich]

It's possible to re-enter politics after a meltdown departure. Consider Richard Nixon's flounce in 1962 after he lost the CA Gov race. "you don't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." -  Richard Nixon's November 1962 press conference

Six years later, he ran for President and won.

I like this response.
Andy Kaczynski on X: "She lost by 20 points, but is saying the election is rigged because she was out spent. (pic link)" / X

For the libs and journalists melting down that Katie Porter called her election “rigged.” She is absolutely right. You have just normalized the buying of elections by billionaires and Super Pacs as the normal democratic process…

When groups like AIPAC give $5 million to Adam Schiff, along with all the other big money he got, & he then spends it on ads to BOOST the Republican over Porter—that is not a Democratic process. It’s a rigged process skewed toward oligarchs & plutocrats. When special interests…

And their money carpet bomb TV in an EXPENSIVE media market to flood voters with positive Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey ads-that DOES rig the process. Not only against Katie Porter, but a deserving candidate like Barbara Lee…who can not compete as they are not corrupt enough…

For the big donors and PACS to flood their money to (i.e. buy off). For libs and journalists to accept—and frame—this race to a corrupt bottom as anything but RIGGED cements how normalized corruption and legalized brutality bribery has become among elites and the media…

There is a VERY big difference between Katie Porter calling the election RIGGED (it was) and STOLEN (ah la Trump). She did not suggest or lie about votes being stolen or dead people voting or any of the other lies Trump and his sycophants push. She is right. And the same RIGGED…

Big money process plays out every year—from Senate elections all the way down to local City Councils. Occasionally an outspent candidate is able to beat the big money—but that is usually the exception to the rule. We need to get big money out and public financing of elections in

 

[Derec]

For the libs and journalists melting down that Katie Porter called her election “rigged.” She is absolutely right. You have just normalized the buying of elections by billionaires and Super Pacs as the normal democratic process…

The voters still decide. Money can improve your name recognition and put your message out, but it means nothing if the candidate does not receive actual votes. Calling the election rigged is just Ms. Whiteboard being a sore loser.

When groups like AIPAC give $5 million to Adam Schiff, along with all the other big money he got, & he then spends it on ads to BOOST the Republican over Porter—that is not a Democratic process. It’s a rigged process skewed toward oligarchs & plutocrats. When special interests…

It may not be a Democratic process, but it is part of the democratic process. Katie Porter herself tried to boost another Republican to dillute the Republican vote.

And their money carpet bomb TV in an EXPENSIVE media market to flood voters with positive Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey ads-that DOES rig the process. Not only against Katie Porter, but a deserving candidate like Barbara Lee…who can not compete as they are not corrupt enough…

LMAO at calling the black nationalist Barbara Lee a "deserving candidate".

For the big donors and PACS to flood their money to (i.e. buy off). For libs and journalists to accept—and frame—this race to a corrupt bottom as anything but RIGGED cements how normalized corruption and legalized brutality bribery has become among elites and the media…

It's quite much to call spending money on campaign ads "brutality bribery" whatever that even means.

 

[Derec]

Her Twitter banner has this: "I díd not go to Washington to learn how to play by the rules. I went to Washington to rewrite them." I hope that this will be only a temporary setback.

If she wants to stay in politics, she could either try to regain her House seat in two years or else she could run for governor that same year. Goodhair is term limited and can't run again.

Or she could throw a Hail Mary and run for president in 2028. I do not think she would pick up much support. Members of the House do not tend to do well running for president, and she would be out of Congress for four years.

 

[Derec]

It must be conceded that if BL dropped out of the race and supported KP, then KP may still not have gotten into the top two.

Yeah, the left split the vote. Lee really had no business running for Senate. There was no way she could win a statewide election being as radical as she is.

We also sent a strong message on the urgency of calling for a permanent ceasefire and ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Again, what does that mean concretely? Hamas is making ridiculous demands for a ceasefire (that they would break anyway at earliest convenience) but the "ceasefire now" crowd is demanding Israel somehow conjure up a ceasefire. SMH.

Killing over 30,000 civilians will never lead to peace and security for the Israelis or the Palestinians. The United States needs to be a leader for a pathway to peace and security in the Middle East and around the world.

Why should we trust numbers given by the Hamas health ministry?

 

[laughing dog]

We also sent a strong message on the urgency of calling for a permanent ceasefire and ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Again, what does that mean concretely? Hamas is making ridiculous demands for a ceasefire (that they would break anyway at earliest convenience) but the "ceasefire now" crowd is demanding Israel somehow conjure up a ceasefire. SMH.

Any side in a conflict can stop firing whenever they choose. There is nothing to stop Israel from stopping for a week to allow humanitarian aid coming in. If Hamas acts up, they can start pounding agsin.

Killing over 30,000 civilians will never lead to peace and security for the Israelis or the Palestinians. The United States needs to be a leader for a pathway to peace and security in the Middle East and around the world.

Why should we trust numbers given by the Hamas health ministry?

The last death count I saw in The Economist was 29,000. Even if half of that are combatants, that leaves around 14,000 dead Gazan civilians. Which makes it a 10:1 ratio of Gazan to Israeli civilians.