Katie Porter's star dims in failed US Senate bid, leaving the Californian facing an uncertain future - eviltoast

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.”

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I think that’s a cute phrase but I don’t accept its application here. For example, one could say Porter’s viral whiteboards was a broken-clock. Her campaign strategy just wasn’t very effective. Even I as a supporter barely heard a blip from her that just last month I had to Google what’s going on. Her debate performance wasn’t that great either.

    I’d rather they both be in Congress from different positions.

    Now, the vaccuum left by Porter as the article points out jeopordizes our congressional prospects further.

    Pettily downvote all you want.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Her campaign was outspent by a lot because Schiff was backed by big money pac. And he did it in a scummy way.

      I stand behind my usage of the broken clock adage.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What “big money pac” are you referring to? I’m looking at the data for both Porter and Schiff and they both received PAC money…

        Schiff still out-raised Porter in individual campaign contributions — both big, and small.

        Political Action Committees aren’t really a problem. SuperPACs are.

        By the way…