This gives me vibes back to the call for Breyer and RBG to retire... Dems call for Feinstein to resign {Updated: Feinstein has passed} (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

While California is a safe Senate seat for Democrats, her absence is causing delays and friction in getting nominations through (which counters what I said in a previous thread). I think they're right for calling for her to step down. It seems selfish.

Feinstein asks to be ‘temporarily’ replaced on Judiciary amid some party pressure to resign from the Senate | CNN Politics

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday night that she had asked to be “temporarily” replaced on the Senate Judiciary Committee while she is recovering from shingles, but the California Democrat remained committed to returning to the Senate amid pressure by some in her party to step down.

www.cnn.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Here's the thing, however. I like Katie as well. But in the general, I think she loses to Schiff anyway. Katie's to the left of Adam, which means she'll likely lose any moderates and all Republicans.

***ETA***Then again, the GOP hates Schiff to their core (hence the recent censure), so who knows.

 

[MT15]

Here's the thing, however. I like Katie as well. But in the general, I think she loses to Schiff anyway. Katie's to the left of Adam, which means she'll likely lose any moderates and all Republicans.

***ETA***Then again, the GOP hates Schiff to their core (hence the recent censure), so who knows.

Yeah, I’ve seen people on Twitter bemoaning a couple things - they felt Katie needed a few more terms before making the leap to the Senate, and it ruffled a few feathers in the old guard that she declared her candidacy before Feinstein was dead. In other words, she was willing to primary Feinstein. She can’t do that and expect it not to cause a bit of a stir.

 

[Optimus Prime]

............Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) lost her bid for the U.S. Senate in Tuesday’s primary elections. She came in third in the state’s all-comers system, trailing both Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former baseball star Steve Garvey (R) by wide margins.

On Wednesday evening, she offered an explanation: The thing had been rigged.

“Thank you to everyone who supported our campaign and voted to shake up the status quo in Washington,” she wrote on social media. “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.”

After that comment triggered a widespread backlash — particularly from members of her party aghast at her mirroring Trumpian rhetoric — she put out a statement.

“‘Rigged’ means manipulated by dishonest means,” it began. “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.”

In common parlance, “rigged” means more than what is presented above. It implies that the election was inherently biased to achieve an outcome. That’s how Trumpworld uses the term and that’s the way Porter’s original statement was read.

The argument in the statement is one that has been common on the left for decades, that the influence of big money taints election outcomes. But applying the word “rigged” in 2024 has a different connotation, including for the person who’s using it.

All of that aside, though, the central argument Porter makes is dubious.

In every poll conducted over the past few months, Schiff had the lead. At times, that lead was narrow and it was over Porter. More recently, Schiff’s lead was over Garvey. But there’s not much indication that Porter’s support was hurt over time; the 538 average of polls in the state shows her consistently in the midteens.

There were millions of dollars spent against Porter, money from the cryptocurrency industry that was a response to her criticism of the industry and its energy usage. One of the ads was criticized by the Sacramento Bee. But Porter also spent more than $20 million from her own campaign as of mid-February — less than the nearly $40 million Schiff had spent by that point but far more than Garvey or the fourth-place finisher, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).............

But there is an obvious reason that Schiff led the whole time: He was much better known. Over the past five years, there was more Google search interest in Schiff than Porter in 85 percent of weeks. Since 2017, when Schiff began to make a name for himself as an opponent of Donald Trump’s, he’s been mentioned in more than 17,000 15-second blocks on MSNBC — and more than 22,000 on Fox News. Porter’s been mentioned in about 2,300 blocks on both channels combined.........

MSN

 

[zztop]

Yeah, and the reason why she’s mad is that she says a Schiff supporter bolstered Garvey so that Schiff wouldn’t have to face another Democrat in the fall. I don’t know if that happened or not, but it isn’t “rigging” an election. I know other candidates have bolstered the weaker candidate in the other party in a primary hoping to get a more favorable opponent. It’s not rigging. She knows better, or she should.

Democrats did a similar thing, helping sink a (R) who, I might add, was one of the few that voted to impeach trump... They did that so (D) could run against an easier opponent (a pro-trump conspiracy theorist) and have a better chance of winning. I didn't like it then, and still makes me uncomfortable.. but tactics like this have probably been going on for decades

House Dems try to sink pro-impeachment Republican in primary

It's the latest example of Democratic groups boosting pro-Trump candidates in GOP primaries, thinking they'd be easier to beat in the fall.

www.politico.com

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee placed a TV ad buy in the Grand Rapids market on Monday morning to meddle in the final days of Meijer’s (R-Mich.) primary. His Western Michigan district is one of the party’s top offensive targets this election, and Democratic strategists believe if they can boost Meijer’s pro-Trump challenger to victory next week, they will have an easier time this fall trying to flip a seat President Joe Biden carried by nine points in 2020.

 

[MT15]

Democrats did a similar thing, helping sink a (R) who, I might add, was one of the few that voted to impeach trump... They did that so (D) could run against an easier opponent (a pro-trump conspiracy theorist) and have a better chance of winning. I didn't like it then, and still makes me uncomfortable.. but tactics like this have probably been going on for decades

House Dems try to sink pro-impeachment Republican in primary

It's the latest example of Democratic groups boosting pro-Trump candidates in GOP primaries, thinking they'd be easier to beat in the fall.

www.politico.com

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee placed a TV ad buy in the Grand Rapids market on Monday morning to meddle in the final days of Meijer’s (R-Mich.) primary. His Western Michigan district is one of the party’s top offensive targets this election, and Democratic strategists believe if they can boost Meijer’s pro-Trump challenger to victory next week, they will have an easier time this fall trying to flip a seat President Joe Biden carried by nine points in 2020.

Agreed. It’s been going on - by both sides - for decades. Still not “rigging” and her use of that word is indefensible, IMO.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Big money and the even worse dark money have absolutely rigged and corrupted our entire election process. The sooner we all accept that and do something about it the better our government will be. If we don't do something about it, then we will lose our democracy a lot sooner than people realize and want to accept.

Big money and dark money are deceptive, dishonest and authoritarian.

I completely understand and support what Porter said and she is completely right.

You can have a different opinion, but you don't get to have your own definition of words and your opinion doesn't change the truth. Rigging an election doesn't just mean doing something to ballots and ballot counts.

Big money and dark money absolutely rigs elections and the fact that it happens all the time is a problem, it's not justification for allowing it to keep happening.

Gerrymandering rigs elections. Laws designed to allegedly protect our elections, that are actually designed to suppress certain voters, rigs our elections. All of those efforts are promoted and financed by big money and dark money.

Having a negative knee jerk reaction to what Porter said is absurd, especially when that knee jerk reaction is based on not understanding the full meaning of rigging an election.

Porter did not make anywhere near the same false claims that Trump has been making. Trump's false claims do not get to redefine the term rigging. Trump's false claims do not justify getting bent out of shape at anyone accurately and correctly using the term rigging.

Unfortunately, we are living in an absurdly reactionary time. Every human being needs to come to terms with the fact none of us are rational beings. We are all emotional beings capable of rational thought. When one deceives themself into believing they are a rational being, then they are driven by their emotions with very little regulation and guidance by reason.

Definition of RIG

to fit out with rigging; clothe, dress —usually used with out; to furnish with special gear : equip… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[MT15]

L.A. you and Katie can be correct about the dictionary definition, but it’s not knee-jerk to condemn her use of the exact word that Trump has weaponized against democracy. She should have known better and her use of that word gave aid and comfort to the people who are undermining democracy as we are sitting here. She needed to use different words, it was an unforced error. We will have to agree to disagree. And I like Katie a lot, and hope she finds a way to get back into national politics.

 

[bird]

Big money and the even worse dark money have absolutely rigged and corrupted our entire election process. The sooner we all accept that and do something about it the better our government will be. If we don't do something about it, then we will lose our democracy a lot sooner than people realize and want to accept.

Big money and dark money are deceptive, dishonest and authoritarian.

I completely understand and support what Porter said and she is completely right.

You can have a different opinion, but you don't get to have your own definition of words and your opinion doesn't change the truth. Rigging an election doesn't just mean doing something to ballots and ballot counts.

Big money and dark money absolutely rigs elections and the fact that it happens all the time is a problem, it's not justification for allowing it to keep happening.

Gerrymandering rigs elections. Laws designed to allegedly protect our elections, that are actually designed to suppress certain voters, rigs our elections. All of those efforts are promoted and financed by big money and dark money.

Having a negative knee jerk reaction to what Porter said is absurd, especially when that knee jerk reaction is based on not understanding the full meaning of rigging an election.

Porter did not make anywhere near the same false claims that Trump has been making. Trump's false claims do not get to redefine the term rigging. Trump's false claims do not justify getting bent out of shape at anyone accurately and correctly using the term rigging.

Unfortunately, we are living in an absurdly reactionary time. Every human being needs to come to terms with the fact none of us are rational beings. We are all emotional beings capable of rational thought. When one deceives themself into believing they are a rational being, then they are driven by their emotions with very little regulation and guidance by reason.

Definition of RIG

to fit out with rigging; clothe, dress —usually used with out; to furnish with special gear : equip… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You are correct in the statement that big money and dark money are deceptive and authoritarian. Dishonest has an implication of illegality. Unfortunately, due to an incredibly stupid series of SCOTUS decisions it is legal. It is, imo, morally dishonest but that does not change its legality. If Katie Porter took any donations from large donors including PACs of any kind then she was playing in the same sandbox. Indeed, the entire political system has become polluted beyond recognition due to money. It also hasn’t helped that the creation of the so-called “third way” came onto the scene for the Democratic Party.

Beyond that a senatorial election is not impacted by gerrymandering so that reason doesn’t apply in this case. Katie Porter was and is a good representative. If CA law requires that she lose her congressional seat by running for the senate then that is a real shame. She gambled which is what running for office is and she lost. The current conditions undoubtedly played a role in that but she knew that going in. Yes, she can point out that money has far too big a role in our political economy but that does not mean that it was rigged against her. It is in fact, rigged, period. It is rigged against Republicans in some cases and against Democrats in some cases.

Would the results have been different? We do not and cannot know. Nobody gets to know what would have happened.

 

[LA - L.A.]

L.A. you and Katie can be correct about the dictionary definition, but it’s not knee-jerk to condemn her use of the exact word that Trump has weaponized against democracy.

I disagree with your opinion. I think it's absurd to forbid people from correctly using a word, because of other people's dishonest use of a word. I refuse to give Trump or anyone as much power as you give them.

She should have known better...

I think you should know and do better.

...and her use of that word gave aid and comfort to the people who are undermining democracy as we are sitting here.

I think this is ridiculous and irrational.

She needed to use different words,

I think her word usage was fine and disagree with your opinion. We're both only stating our opinions.

 

[MT15]

We're both only stating our opinions.

Yes, of course we are. But I won’t call your opinions ridiculous and irrational. You are correct in the usage of the word, I acknowledged that immediately. I was discussing this as political error only. I still think it was a political error.

 

[zztop]

Yes, of course we are. But I won’t call your opinions ridiculous and irrational. You are correct in the usage of the word, I acknowledged that immediately. I was discussing this as political error only. I still think it was a political error.

As much as I love her, yes, should have used ANY other word besides rigged.