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.”

  • TotalSonic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    All I know is I received so many daily texts and emails from her campaign begging for money that it seriously turned me off, and I don’t even live in CA.

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It was only a matter of time after she embarrassed the banks.

    Progressive candidates do not thrive in an open democracy.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m sorry she lost. People like her, Rachel Bitecofer, AOC must be the future of the party.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not even from there, and I’d want to vote for this woman and for AOC.

      I feel like it would be good to have more women in power in general, like Jacinda Arden, Yulia Tymoshenko, Sanna Marin. I was super hoping for Magdalena Andersson for prime minister, but we got Ulf Kristersson as CEO instead…

      :/

  • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Katie, I’m going to give you the same advice that Jen Barkley gave to Leslie.

    Get a better job! Don’t be the kid that graduates high school and hangs out in the school parking lot. Be the woman who moves away, climbs the ladder, and confidently comes back, and has sex with their hot old English teacher just for kicks.

    We need people like you. Do not give up. If you run for President in 2028, I will volunteer!

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    My 2¢ - she just didn’t do a good job of getting her name out there with many Californians. Her name recognition is big with the wonks and the people in her district, but the people that bestest her were doing a better job of getting their names out there. She’s a better candidate, but she didn’t run as good of a campaign.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ads cost big money, and if your opponent is well-funded by super-rich pacs … well, you lose.

      The money is the issue, and the powerful have most of it.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Fair point.

        The lack of press is what stood out to me the most. But if I think about it for a sec, Schiff managed Trump’s impeachment, he was on the Jan 6 committee, etc. So when the press wants to talk to a democrat about Trump’s crimes, they often knock on his door. He is a talking head that people pulled anytime Trump’s name came up - which happens all the damn time.

        Porter not only had to run the ads and buy the mailers, but she needed a way to compete with the organic press that Schiff was going to get. And she wasn’t able to pull that off.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Most of the press is owned by a handful of companies that are also mega donors. It’s all an incestuous relationship.

          • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            True, but he was also getting interviewed and name dropped by a lot of not for profit journalism here because of the panels and inquiries he had lead.

            At the end of the day, people reporting on the panels and inquiries are going to want to talk to the people associated with them. Not the junior people in Congress who are on the sidelines.

            She hadn’t been in Congress for even a year before people started to coordinate impeachment proceedings on Trump. She was never going to be on those panels. She was still getting up to speed about the gig.

    • DancingBear@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      DNC is gonna keep doing the same thing they always have. They don’t represent democrat voters nor do they have any accountability to anyone.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is true for both parties. They could come in to everyone’s home and shit on our kitchen tables and they’d still get elected because everyone is too afraid to vote for anything else but these two shitty parties.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Those 2 parties are the only ones that can possibly win in a first past the post vote with 2 major parties. Third parties by definition tank the side they are most like when they start to get real traction long before they can actually win elections. If you don’t like it voting third party isn’t a fix you actually have to fix how the electoral system works.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Sure, just keep voting for the guy shitting on your table and arguing about his opponent because his steaming log of shit stank a little bit more. You’re definitely making the right call and it should only take 50 or 60 more elections before things start turning around for us.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Trump doesn’t suck a bit more than Biden. He’s a monster whose plans for this country and the world will lead to millions of deaths and the damage he will do will last for generations. Understand what your actual options are. Nothing you can do will logically reform the electoral system in 6 months but we can stop our country from going entirely to crap.

              • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The only reason why Trump is even a contender is because of these two shitty parties and the Democratic leadership backing some of the worst candidates in existence. Every election is going to have people claiming the opponent “will lead to millions of deaths and destruction” because nothing is going to change which is why we had to vote against him in 2016, again in 2020, and now again in 2024. Even after he dies there will be another Trump popping out of the woodwork.

                By continuing to support these two parties, you’re just ensuring this will continue until the sun burns out. Neither party has any reason to improve things because they’ll get your vote regardless of how awful they become. Even aiding in genocide isn’t enough to alter your decision.

                • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Trump is a threat because an overwhelming majority of Republicans are willing to vote for a monster. Assigning blame for a full 45% of the population for the Democrats not running someone more to your liking is completely crazy. You call Biden one of the worst candidates in existence but the American people voted for him for Vice President of the United States twice and for President once already.

                  The states had the ability to elect someone else for this round if they were really so against him. Spoiler alert they aren’t going to. In fact of the states and territories that have held a primary the only one which awarded votes to anyone other than Biden was American Samoa which… doesn’t actually get to vote in the presidential election. The truth is anyone on team blue would by now be hated by our divided country. Trump and co have done NOTHING but lie since they lost. A Democrat moderate enough to win by definition will be disliked by nearly 100% of the right leaning folks and at least 10–20% of the most progressive if he hews close enough to the middle to actually have a chance to win. 37% is the new normal.

    • themadcodger@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nasty tricks to keep a populist candidate who isn’t a fan of the current capitalist system from winning? Well that certainly sounds familiar.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Schiff spent money on ads on Fox News to boost the Republican in the race so he’d be #2 instead of Porter. He spent more money boosting him than the Republican himself did.

      • Mike D.@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        CA’s goofy primary system lumps GOP and Dem candidates all together. Top two go to November ballet. Adam Schiff focused his advertising on the GOP guy, totally ignoring Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Since Adam Schiff had a huge budget this meant LOTS of advertising for the GOP guy. Schiff and GOP guy were top two. GOP has no chance to win in November

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s not what it should be, but in the standard single party primaries it would still be Schiff winning vs. Republican guy whose name isn’t worth learning. It should just be ranked choice, but them doing an unusual thing didn’t lead to a worse result than the other bad system most states use.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s a really good primary system imo. It’s a good way for us to break out of party focused politics. Unpopular parties won’t automatically get a place on the ballot.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            They’ll just be promoted by their opponents to avoid having to compete against someone who could win.

          • olympicyes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ranked choice would have Schiff vs Porter in the fall. Lot of people complaining about billionaires but the biggest and most concerning factor is this election was the worst voter turnout in California history.

  • LostAndSmelly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Adam Schiff is so fucking slimey. I do not want that man to represent me. He spent millions to boost a republican so that he would not have to run against Katie Porter. It reminds me of Hillary’s superdelegates. The party is broken, the mega rich are pretending to let us have a say and then pretending to fight against the Republicans instead of solving problems.

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m a California constituent, and the idea of Adam Schiff representing me over Katie Porter makes me physically ill.

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Do they? Or does spending millions of dollars campaigning simply effectively manipulate?

          The media is a powerful tool, controlled basically exclusively by money.

          • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’d be careful of this “I am immune to propaganda” line of thinking.

            You’re basically accusing everyone who didn’t vote the way you wanted of being brainwashed fools, and that’s how the progressive bloc spectacularly failed to capture the black vote in 2016 and 2020.

            If your line of thinking forgets that the other person is a person who is actively making decisions, and who’s agency is not changed for deciding differently than you did, you’re wrong.

            That’s how we get white progressives insisting that gun toting Redcaps will totally join the progressive cause if the gays and the POC and the women would all just shut up and stop talking about identity politics.

            • Nate Cox@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              You’re reading a lot into things I did not say.

              An appeal to popularity without a critical eye on the impact of massive media spending is far more dangerous than what you’re accusing me of.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I liked both of them for different reasons. Yes I wanted Porter to win because I believed in her convictions to progressive policy, but if you watched the January 6th hearings, Schiff was fucking amazing.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I was a huge fan before and after the hearings. He was great. I am far, far, less of a fan after seeing this cynical and slimy campaign.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean it’s a good reliable clock.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 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.

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 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
              0
              ·
              4 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…

    • MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Turning out a bunch of Democrats to vote would have helped down ballot too.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • Audacious@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t understand how this is allowed. Why are they being allowed to manipulate ballots to push someone out? Paying to prop up a dummy candidate to manipulate ballots is extremely corrupt to me, unless I’m missing something.

      • olympicyes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Schiff’s ads were attack ads on Garvey. Calling Garvey the MAGA conservative who votes for Trump and is dangerous for California. The ads implied that Garvey was a serious threat in the race. Garvey is famous in California for playing first base for the LA Dodgers and San Diego Padres in the 80s and 90s, but his campaign was bootstrapped so the schiff attack ads helped.