U.S. Rep. Katie Porter became a social media celebrity by brandishing a white board at congressional hearings to dissect CEOs and break down complex figures into assaults on corporate greed, a signature image that propelled the Democrat’s U.S. Senate candidacy in California.
The progressive favorite known for spotlighting her soccer mom, minivan-driving home life was trounced in Tuesday’s primary election to fill the seat once held by the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, finishing far behind Republican Steve Garvey and fellow Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.
Porter didn’t go down quietly. She immediately pointed a finger at “billionaires spending millions to rig this election.” That claim resulted in a brutal social media backlash from many who were happy to depict the congresswoman as a graceless loser.
Perhaps chastened by the criticism, Porter later clarified her initial statement to say she didn’t believe the California vote count or election process had been compromised, but she didn’t recant her earlier remarks. Rigged, she said in a follow-up, “means manipulated by dishonest means.”
I like what Adam Schiff did previously for the country, but I did not like the tactics he did for this election against Porter. Yah, I get that it’s politics. But if he needed to boost a Republican in order to not go against another Democrat in the fall, then maybe he’s not the best person to represent California.
Now, there’s a chance Steve Garvey could win the Senate seat in November. It’s a very, very small chance, but it’s not zero. Why take that chance when it’s so important?
I hope Katie Porter does not go away. She’s exactly what this country needs. The only thing I didn’t like is that her campaign pretty much copied Schiff’s after he did this. She’s must’ve known it was hurting her too much.
Well said. It was very selfish of Schiff. Schiff vs Porter in November would’ve been a win win. Boosting a crazy Republican is an awful decision and is a tactic that’s already come back to bite us.
Turning out a bunch of Democrats to vote would have helped down ballot too.
She was up against BIG pac money and couldn’t battle that demon (literally).
I’m referring to a D vs. D general election having benefits on D vs. R downballot races. Big PAC money didn’t want to risk someone winning who would threaten their personal finances if the only cost was potentially electing more Republicans.
Porter responding to blunt dirty tactics is very different from her opponent initiating dirty tactics. Progressives don’t benefit from unilaterally disarming. The motivation and cause is very different.