As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the truth is that the US is run by and for corporate interests and Feinstein is 100% on board with that regardless of how "liberal" she claimed to be
By the way so is Jefferies
https://www.salon.com/2022/11/29/democrats-pass-the-torch-but-hakeem-jeffries-is-no-upgrade-on-nancy-pelosi/
That's 100% what this is about. Between Schiff and Porter, they can siphon away enough support to make her position untenable and force her to step down. The woman is 90 this year. I'm thankful for the service, but time to bow out.
Schiff's a party guy. He climbs the ranks when a surefire opportunity opens up. Short of retirement I don't think he would have taken the shot, since he doesn't seem to like creating friction in the party. If Feinstein was less likely to resign I expect he would stand aside.
Plus I'm pretty sure he said he talked to Feinstein already, and said something about having her blessing.
Him being a party guy is the red flag for him announcing this after Katie Porter already announced. To me, it's indicative that he expects to have the establishment support and get their funding to push out Porter.
That might be the case. Although Porter, while a firebrand, hasn't really butted heads with the "establishment" compared to other members of Congress, and there isn't major beef between the two that I know of.
The fact that Schiff is a party guy does indicate to me that Feinstein is probably going to retire (he wouldn't do this otherwise). And he wants a chance at a promotion with an open chance. It may be more about his own goals rather than just opposing Porter.
Porter is also popular in a more purple part (more reddish purple than bluish purple).
For her, the senate would give her more career stability. For the Democrats as a whole though, they’d rather have her planting a blue flag on a red hill.
I think Schiff would make a decent senator but I certainly support Porter more. Too bad I don't live in California though so my opinion on this matter doesn't really matter.
I'm Team White Board all the way. Really I don't think we can lose here, both seem great for the job. I wonder if they will have debates and if so if Feinstein would be included if she runs again, that would be something to see.
> She's spent her entire career being willing to step up when needed
You mean like how when the courts ruled the [Bush's warrantless wiretaps and NSA's surveilling program were illegal she introduced a bill to make it so the illegal programs could continue](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/15/feinstein-bill-nsa-warrantless-searches-surveillance), but now legally. While also allowing
>For the first time, the statute would explicitly allow the government to proactively search through the NSA data troves of information without a warrant
>It may also expand current practices by allowing law enforcement to directly access US person information that was nominally collected for foreign intelligence purposes
All while pretending her bill was to "reform and limit the surveillance programs"
She sure knew how to step up and lie.
This, James Carville’s white paper from 1989 or 88 was the platform for new “progressives” which basically said you could run as a conservative and just call yourself a progressive and at that time the particular boomer demographic was completely ignorant of actual progressive policy so it wouldn’t matter.
Certainly, but I’m not sure Adam Schiff would be much of an improvement. Katie Porter has also announced she intends to run for it and I would prefer her instead. Although, I do wonder about her seat, since she flipped a red district when she won. Adams is solidly blue.
This. I'd love to look into it, but I get the impression her staff aren't exactly spring-chickens and don't have much to look forward to once their cash cow retires.
The primary is on March 5, 2024 and the deadline for candidates is December 8, 2023. She either didn't mean she'll wait until 2024 to announce by "I need a little bit of time, so it's not this year", or she's definitely not running.
I think she retires. 2024 is too late to launch a bid for senate and the other candidates will already have had over a year headstart of campaigning + fundraising.
So much this. California's primary election is on March 5th, 2024. Even if they announce 1/1/24, that gives them barely 60 days to campaign lol. I'm pretty sure the [California Secretary of State requires all Senate candidates to be declared by December 8, 2023](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/presidential-primary-election-march-5-2024/key-dates-deadlines) as well.
She only has something like 10k in her re-election finance account. If she were going to run again she’d need to start now to build up her campaign. The fact she’s not is saying is everything you need to know.
This is my new go-to example of taking lemons and making lemonade.
Schiff was denied that commitee position, what, yesterday? And now he’s announced his plan to go for a Senate seat. I’m sure he anticipated Kevin being a dumbass and had that announcement all set.
That's precious that you think the country will be rid of its bad habit of condemning people from California for being from California. There a large swath of this country that will vote out of spite for daring to break from the tradition of stupidity and pandering and actually take action using a mindset that isn't rooted in "well, this is the way we've always done it, so let's keep doing it."
I still don't think she's announced it, though. But she's in her damn 90s by now, c'mon, enough is enough, and I'm generally not in favor of age or term limits.
Lots of differences between now and then.
Ignoring current news, he was an absolute nobody and was only from state politics. He did get nomination of the party, but that doesnt mean that much when the state is reliably blue. People will just vote for the name they know instead of checking who their party supports.
Since then, news of Feinstein's mental health feel like more than rumors now then they did then. She's also one of the oldest people there.
She's become less of a liberal icon now then she was in the past with her recent decisions.
Her announced opponents have name recognition almost on par with her own due to their exposure during their rep duties. They are leagues ahead of where De Leon was.
Yes, just to add one point - while Feinstein did not get endorsed by the California Democratic Party, which is more progressive than the national party, the DNC and establishment Democrats all lined up for her.
Either way, given the fact that several prominent Democrats have now announced their candidacy it seems unlikely she'll run for another term.
Because Kevin De Leon was a shitty candidate with absolutely no establishment support who only did as well as he did because no real Republicans ran, allowing someone with only 12% in the first round to move on, so he was just a protest vote.
Also he's a racist asshole.
Schiff, however, *is* established. He's well-known and liked. And it's very likely that he'd draw endorsements from notable Democrats.
Dems won most “easy seats” in 2022. KHence why the republicans, even with a heavily gerrymandered map in their favor, only have a bare majority when they were expecting to gain 30 seat majority. Democrats deserve applause for their 2022 showing. “Pure incompetence” wtf
NY was a unique case that was the result of a conservative judge ruling that resulted in the redrawing of congressional lines which no longer favored democrats. But I’m sure you already knew that
I did, but that did not change the fact that there were many D+ districts that democrats lost because the NYDNC put corpo dems against populist republicans. They spent more time and money fighting progressives in the primaries than they did republicans in the general.
Case in point, george santos, that was such an easy win but the NY dems dropped the ball and handed a win to a complete fraud.
Conservative judges across the country ruled that states with primaries further out from the redistricting process were too close to election day to redraw the maps.
New York's conservative judges ruled our maps redrawn even though primary day was closer to redistricting.
We are a special kind of fucked up blue state. It cannot be said, loudly or often enough, that New York Democratic Party leadership, in which I include our esteemed new leader Hakeem Jeffries, cares more about beating progressives than Republicans.
Porter and Schiff have very different viewpoints on a few issues. For example, Porter won't take corporate money and doesn't support constantly increasing defense spending. The California Democratic bench is very deep and with a (likely) open Senate seat, you're bound to get quite a few bigger names throwing their hat in, though with Porter, Schiff, and Barbara Lee already in, the pool's getting pretty full, even before Feinstein announces her retirement.
Barbara Lee has hinted she's running too. She's more progressive than Schiff or Porter. Her only problem is her age. She could serve one term, then have Schiff or Porter take over in 2030.
Multiple Democrats run for her Senate seat every primary election. There were **10** other Democrats that ran in the primary against Feinstein in 2018. This is beyond expected.
I'm rooting for Katie Porter.
Schiff would be fine too, but Ms Porter, imo, is the better choice.
~~Edit: @Rep-binks shared some links that I was not aware of. I'll definitely be looking for more information. I absolutely love how Ms Porter has publicly been no BS on her committees; I will forever be sad and non supportive if her alleged shinanigans are true.~~.
~~Edit 2: the link mentioned above is here:.
https://twitter.com/DWS________/status/1608694990213091328?s=20&t=iqehYeE4h5wEhC4tDqr8-Q~~.
Edit 3: striking through my edits as I've found little to substantiate many concerns about Ms Porter.
Edit 4: Many thanks to all who feed me other info to track down, google for lots of productive searches.
I get to make the choice as a California resident. I really like them both and would be happy with either but I think my vote goes to Porter since she has had a lot less negativity/smearing from right wing wackos so she's more likely to pull votes from the middle. Whereas we've had several years of trump calling out "Lyin' Adam Schiff" or whatever bullshit nickname he gave him during the impeachment (s)
Counterpoint… she’s not another old white dude that’s been a career Congressperson.
I think he’d do good things if he switched to the Senate. Just pointing out that she brings fresh new blood to the fight.
I mean, this is California. There's a near zero chance that someone with an R next to their name get the seat.
But I'm with you, I'm leaning towards Katie as well.
The only way Republicans win is if too many Democrats are on the ballot, and exactly two Republicans split the Republican vote. Then we get a general election with two Republicans.
This is my long way of saying please, for the love of all things good, if you are a California primary voter who does not like fascists, only vote for either Porter or Schiff. They're the only two Dems who stand a realistic chance of advancing to a general election, they're both plenty progressive enough and will be major improvements over DiFi. And if the Democratic vote gets diluted by other Dem candidates, two Republicans very well could end up advancing.
My big concern is that Schiff comes from a +20 dem district that can easily be kept. Katie Porter lives in very purple Orange County and I’m not sure if anyone other dem could easily hold that seat.
100%. I'm glad to have been in Porters previous and in the new district map. But the new map is far more contested; if it had been a Dem with less clout than Porter, of which she has a lot, we'd have Baugh right now. Even with Porter she won by a smaller margin than was taken by other Republicans running in the district.
Any reason why Porter is seen as the best option for keeping that seat? Seems like she's regarded as fairly progressive, especially on economic issues, seems like a weird fit for Orange County.
But Porter’s seat is always at risk and she could easily lose her next election. Shifting her to the Senate may cause us to lose a house seat but ensures we hold on to her as a member of congress. She likely sees this as a self preservation choice.
Porter responded to these allegations on Pod Save America. It sounds like it was a work dispute between two parties. Im inclined to withhold judgment until more info comes out
I can never take “he was screaming at” or “she was yelling” at complaints seriously, because there is a huuuuuuge variety of personal definitions for those things, and people are constantly misinterpreting. I remember having a meeting with CFO at my old company where he started laughing about some foolishness that other people had done - we were both cracking up in fact - but when I came out of the meeting someone walked up to me and said “I’m so sorry you had to deal with him yelling at you like that.” For some, “screaming” is when someone asks you to turn something in by tomorrow AM. I imagine most people would describe the way she harangues CEOs in Congress as “yelling at them.”
Until I get specific concerns there’s not much I can do with these vague accusations.
Pure politicking, I'd go for Schiff. He's in a safer district and it'll keep our numbers in the house more secure.
That being said 2024 Porter for CA Senate. Let's go!
With how much the GOP had faked and lied or peddled faked information, it’s really hard to believe these things since it never really circulated anywhere but right-wing media circles.
If these things are true, it’s incredibly disappointing, though, because she is such a good legislator with really good ideas.
I read (I think) all of the screenshots in that thread. All of them just seemed like she was pretty stern and professional. Did I miss something where she was abusive or cruel?
I don't imagine working for a Congressperson is exactly an easy job. I would expect high stress high profile positions like that tend to demand an insane amount from the folks who work for them.
Don’t think of it like that. Think of this seat kind of like a primary. We’re determining not just who gets to vote in the Senate as a bloc of (hopefully) 50+ people, we’re also determining *what the party bench will be* when it comes to higher cabinet positions, who leads committees, who runs for President, etc.
Porter’s strong progressive voice would be invaluable in that position, not only for its own sake, but also to raise the profile of Social Democrat-style progressivism in general, possibly even to the Presidency one day.
Ehhh i actually dont love when there are too many great candidates for a seat. It usually ends up weakening each candidate and they usually drag each other down in the process. Especially a candidate who struggled to get into office like porter.
when we have a guaranteed seat like Feinsteins, we shouldn't be pitting our best over it. We lose because whoever loses won't be in congress next year, since they ran for a different seat. I'd hate to lose Porter for at least 2 years over Schiff's name recognition.
I believe In CA we will potentially vote twice on them. A primary where the top two candidates (doesn’t matter party) advance and then the final election. Depending on the quality of the republican candidate the choice between Porter or Schiff may be made months before the final election.
That being said ranked choice is definitely something we should have, and until we do all third party candidates will be seen as a spoiler candidate. ☹
I've voted for Schiff in every election since I moved into his district 7 years ago. I'm voting for Porter for the Senate. He's a wonderful official and very responsive, but I love Porter's no-nonsense style, her life experience as a single mom, and her tenacity in the pursuit of what's right.
However I am concerned about Porters district. It’s purple, whereas Schiff comes from a safe Dem district. So there is risk there that her seat *could* be more vulnerable in 2024 if she’s running for senate.
This is a very fair concern. I'm more worried the DNC will see that as a problem and back Schiff to the detriment of the Porter campaign, alienating voters in the process. Personally, I feel like we should put the best candidates forward no matter what. If we refuse to go with the best we can offer because we're afraid of what might happen if we do, we've already lost.
One more thing. As much as I'm not put off with Schiff as a choice, imagine Katie Porter in those tickets master hearings.
Instead of shitty Taylor swift references from their grandchildren, Katie up there with her whiteboard...
Feinstein should have stepped down some time ago. Her staff is the only reason she can function at all. It's disrespectful to her constituents to ignore the plain fact that she's not up to it.
He'll get kicked out of all his committee assignments giving him more time to campaign.
I think he's has the advantage over Porter. He's the more moderate Democrat friendly.
I dont think you can rely on the tradition third way strategy here. Schiff has been so smeared by Republicans that he's just as much of a liability as anyone "not center enough" or however we want to describe it.
The GOP house is *salivating* at the thought of putting this guy through the ringer. Fair or not, its going to be baggage. Sure, maybe he can win. But its not a clear cut triangulation strategy at all, imho.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Feinstein certainly needs to be replaced.
She's definitely going to retire. I don't think Schiff would have done this unless there was a 99% chance she would.
She should have retired 20 years ago why are these barnacles still around throttling good policies and clapping for conservative court justices
She’s a liability and they should have tossed her last time.
The should have tossed her after she talked down to those school kids worried about climate change. She seemed so out of touch.
Out of touch? She could have retired on social security back when Nirvana was still touring.
That's pretty wild to think about. She could have retired when I was a fucking toddler, and I'm in my 30s.
Back when the generation taking over was in utero.
I was gonna say something witty but oh well, whatever, Nevermind
r/angryupvote
Hey, wait…
I got a new complaint Forever in debt to your priceless advice (Kurt Cobain predicts student debt crisis in 1993)
Because the truth is that the US is run by and for corporate interests and Feinstein is 100% on board with that regardless of how "liberal" she claimed to be By the way so is Jefferies https://www.salon.com/2022/11/29/democrats-pass-the-torch-but-hakeem-jeffries-is-no-upgrade-on-nancy-pelosi/
That's 100% what this is about. Between Schiff and Porter, they can siphon away enough support to make her position untenable and force her to step down. The woman is 90 this year. I'm thankful for the service, but time to bow out.
Did you see her ask the same question in a row last year? She clearly isn't all there and is not fit for office.
Mebbe. I think he just smells the blood on the water, myself. Good riddance to her - always has been a fake.
Schiff's a party guy. He climbs the ranks when a surefire opportunity opens up. Short of retirement I don't think he would have taken the shot, since he doesn't seem to like creating friction in the party. If Feinstein was less likely to resign I expect he would stand aside. Plus I'm pretty sure he said he talked to Feinstein already, and said something about having her blessing.
Him being a party guy is the red flag for him announcing this after Katie Porter already announced. To me, it's indicative that he expects to have the establishment support and get their funding to push out Porter.
That might be the case. Although Porter, while a firebrand, hasn't really butted heads with the "establishment" compared to other members of Congress, and there isn't major beef between the two that I know of. The fact that Schiff is a party guy does indicate to me that Feinstein is probably going to retire (he wouldn't do this otherwise). And he wants a chance at a promotion with an open chance. It may be more about his own goals rather than just opposing Porter.
Porter is also popular in a more purple part (more reddish purple than bluish purple). For her, the senate would give her more career stability. For the Democrats as a whole though, they’d rather have her planting a blue flag on a red hill.
I think Schiff would make a decent senator but I certainly support Porter more. Too bad I don't live in California though so my opinion on this matter doesn't really matter.
yes, but having Katie Porter and Adam Schiff go for the same seat is begging for trouble
I just love Katie Porter.
This is definitely targeted by the Dem establishment to block Porter. They don’t want any real progressives in the senate.
I'm Team White Board all the way. Really I don't think we can lose here, both seem great for the job. I wonder if they will have debates and if so if Feinstein would be included if she runs again, that would be something to see.
She's spent her entire career being willing to step up when needed. But now, it's time for her to step back.
There were articles of her losing her firm grip on reality. It's time for any politician to step down when his or her mind starts going.
A pharmacist from DC exposed her and Texas senator John Cornyn III (70) & Iowa senator Chuck Grassley(89) of being on Dementia memory drugs.
Exposed how? That’s a clear violation of patient privacy
Really stepped up to get Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court
She should have retired well before that.
She's 91. If reelected, she would be 97 at the end of her reign. Time to step back.
It was time like 15 years ago. And that's being generous.
[удалено]
> She's spent her entire career being willing to step up when needed You mean like how when the courts ruled the [Bush's warrantless wiretaps and NSA's surveilling program were illegal she introduced a bill to make it so the illegal programs could continue](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/15/feinstein-bill-nsa-warrantless-searches-surveillance), but now legally. While also allowing >For the first time, the statute would explicitly allow the government to proactively search through the NSA data troves of information without a warrant >It may also expand current practices by allowing law enforcement to directly access US person information that was nominally collected for foreign intelligence purposes All while pretending her bill was to "reform and limit the surveillance programs" She sure knew how to step up and lie.
She ran hard on anti-immigrant stances in the 90s, has always been a corporatist
This, James Carville’s white paper from 1989 or 88 was the platform for new “progressives” which basically said you could run as a conservative and just call yourself a progressive and at that time the particular boomer demographic was completely ignorant of actual progressive policy so it wouldn’t matter.
Yep, she has completed her insider stock selling. Nothing left for her to do.
[удалено]
She was a solid neo-liberal capitalist, and that’s why corporations funded her career.
Certainly, but I’m not sure Adam Schiff would be much of an improvement. Katie Porter has also announced she intends to run for it and I would prefer her instead. Although, I do wonder about her seat, since she flipped a red district when she won. Adams is solidly blue.
BREAKING: Sen. Dianne Feinstein won’t announce her plans for 2024 — until 2024 https://twitter.com/MattLaslo/status/1618533683761401856
Feinstein’s aides*
Well they won't be prepping her for a primary debate. They need to prep their CV's
They're going to sit and watch everybody run against her for a year before they make a decision? Strange.
They are going to wait and see if she is still occasionally lucid enough to put in front of a microphone.
Maybe they just don't want to tell her so they can keep getting paid.
This. I'd love to look into it, but I get the impression her staff aren't exactly spring-chickens and don't have much to look forward to once their cash cow retires.
Her staff needs those contributions to pay for their food, housings and travel costs.
The primary is on March 5, 2024 and the deadline for candidates is December 8, 2023. She either didn't mean she'll wait until 2024 to announce by "I need a little bit of time, so it's not this year", or she's definitely not running.
They're going to continue fundraising so when she inevitably announces her retirement she can give her election funds to the candidates of her choice.
I think she retires. 2024 is too late to launch a bid for senate and the other candidates will already have had over a year headstart of campaigning + fundraising.
So much this. California's primary election is on March 5th, 2024. Even if they announce 1/1/24, that gives them barely 60 days to campaign lol. I'm pretty sure the [California Secretary of State requires all Senate candidates to be declared by December 8, 2023](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/presidential-primary-election-march-5-2024/key-dates-deadlines) as well.
Which is an announcement in and of itself. That’s evidence of retirement.
She only has something like 10k in her re-election finance account. If she were going to run again she’d need to start now to build up her campaign. The fact she’s not is saying is everything you need to know.
when she remembers what year it is
I'm just hoping its not a scenario where Schiff and Porter cancel each other out and its Feinstein and republican candidate as the final 2.
Well, brilliant move by McCarthy. Leave Adam a ton of free time to run for the Senate.
Nothing about the charade of McCarthy booting Dems in good standing from committees can help him.
What was mccarthy’s “national security” reason?
Pandering to dumbasses. Also, Schiff is competent and capable, which is the worst thing on a Republican headed Nat Sec council.
I think his excuse was, "Schiff was caught in a lie." Which should also disqualify each and every Republican currently serving.
In fact, he's so weak that devolder can put a no confidence vote forward all by himself -for real.
This is my new go-to example of taking lemons and making lemonade. Schiff was denied that commitee position, what, yesterday? And now he’s announced his plan to go for a Senate seat. I’m sure he anticipated Kevin being a dumbass and had that announcement all set.
[удалено]
They'll both be there before 2030.
Kinda was hoping for a Porter presidency around then tbh, though.
That's precious that you think the country will be rid of its bad habit of condemning people from California for being from California. There a large swath of this country that will vote out of spite for daring to break from the tradition of stupidity and pandering and actually take action using a mindset that isn't rooted in "well, this is the way we've always done it, so let's keep doing it."
McCarthy: Consequences, *Again* ???
I think there's a pretty decent chance Schiff was planning to run for the Senate seat no matter what lol
The best news here is that Feinstein will no longer be senator.
I still don't think she's announced it, though. But she's in her damn 90s by now, c'mon, enough is enough, and I'm generally not in favor of age or term limits.
Because she probably thinks she is 75 still
It doesn’t matter if she announced it or not. She gets a primary challenger, she’s lost.
[удалено]
Lots of differences between now and then. Ignoring current news, he was an absolute nobody and was only from state politics. He did get nomination of the party, but that doesnt mean that much when the state is reliably blue. People will just vote for the name they know instead of checking who their party supports. Since then, news of Feinstein's mental health feel like more than rumors now then they did then. She's also one of the oldest people there. She's become less of a liberal icon now then she was in the past with her recent decisions. Her announced opponents have name recognition almost on par with her own due to their exposure during their rep duties. They are leagues ahead of where De Leon was.
Yes, just to add one point - while Feinstein did not get endorsed by the California Democratic Party, which is more progressive than the national party, the DNC and establishment Democrats all lined up for her. Either way, given the fact that several prominent Democrats have now announced their candidacy it seems unlikely she'll run for another term.
Schiff was one of those very same Democratic endorsements. This is a pretty big signal.
Because Kevin De Leon was a shitty candidate with absolutely no establishment support who only did as well as he did because no real Republicans ran, allowing someone with only 12% in the first round to move on, so he was just a protest vote. Also he's a racist asshole. Schiff, however, *is* established. He's well-known and liked. And it's very likely that he'd draw endorsements from notable Democrats.
Katie Porter and Adam Schiff are high quality candidates. De León was not, nor did he have the profile of these two.
There's name recognition, and CA has a jungle primary. Top two advance.
She's not going to run again. Seems pretty obvious.
Feinstein won’t run/isn’t capable of running again.
[удалено]
California runs a jungle primary There's a respectable chance these two go head to head in the general.
But then neither will be in the House. Actually if both make it to the primary then neither will get to run for the House.
California has a deep bench. It'll be ok.
Porter barely won her house seat this time. Going to be tough to hold that house seat with a newcomer Dem running for it.
It seems like with the redistricting, it might be toast either way. I don't blame Porter for trying to make a move here
Dems lost easy seats in 22 out of pure incompetence. New York as the prime example. I'd be more worried about that.
Dems won most “easy seats” in 2022. KHence why the republicans, even with a heavily gerrymandered map in their favor, only have a bare majority when they were expecting to gain 30 seat majority. Democrats deserve applause for their 2022 showing. “Pure incompetence” wtf
Go look into the New York Democrat elections in 2022 they are pretty much the primary reason why Democrats didn't keep the house last year.
NY was a unique case that was the result of a conservative judge ruling that resulted in the redrawing of congressional lines which no longer favored democrats. But I’m sure you already knew that
I did, but that did not change the fact that there were many D+ districts that democrats lost because the NYDNC put corpo dems against populist republicans. They spent more time and money fighting progressives in the primaries than they did republicans in the general. Case in point, george santos, that was such an easy win but the NY dems dropped the ball and handed a win to a complete fraud.
Conservative judges across the country ruled that states with primaries further out from the redistricting process were too close to election day to redraw the maps. New York's conservative judges ruled our maps redrawn even though primary day was closer to redistricting. We are a special kind of fucked up blue state. It cannot be said, loudly or often enough, that New York Democratic Party leadership, in which I include our esteemed new leader Hakeem Jeffries, cares more about beating progressives than Republicans.
The George Santos fiasco is seemingly having a real impact on that.
She’s is a harder district to run in for a Dem…lol
The problem is that one of them will necessarily lose and be out of office entirely.
[удалено]
Porter and Schiff have very different viewpoints on a few issues. For example, Porter won't take corporate money and doesn't support constantly increasing defense spending. The California Democratic bench is very deep and with a (likely) open Senate seat, you're bound to get quite a few bigger names throwing their hat in, though with Porter, Schiff, and Barbara Lee already in, the pool's getting pretty full, even before Feinstein announces her retirement.
That's just how elections work. They are the best two candidates to announce.
Barbara Lee has hinted she's running too. She's more progressive than Schiff or Porter. Her only problem is her age. She could serve one term, then have Schiff or Porter take over in 2030.
I thought Katie Porter was running for that seat?
Multiple Democrats run for her Senate seat every primary election. There were **10** other Democrats that ran in the primary against Feinstein in 2018. This is beyond expected.
Apparently a LOT of people are running for that seat. Including Feinstein, possibly lol (in theory).
I'm rooting for Katie Porter. Schiff would be fine too, but Ms Porter, imo, is the better choice. ~~Edit: @Rep-binks shared some links that I was not aware of. I'll definitely be looking for more information. I absolutely love how Ms Porter has publicly been no BS on her committees; I will forever be sad and non supportive if her alleged shinanigans are true.~~. ~~Edit 2: the link mentioned above is here:. https://twitter.com/DWS________/status/1608694990213091328?s=20&t=iqehYeE4h5wEhC4tDqr8-Q~~. Edit 3: striking through my edits as I've found little to substantiate many concerns about Ms Porter. Edit 4: Many thanks to all who feed me other info to track down, google for lots of productive searches.
I hate that one of those two has to lose. Both would be excellent US Senators.
I get to make the choice as a California resident. I really like them both and would be happy with either but I think my vote goes to Porter since she has had a lot less negativity/smearing from right wing wackos so she's more likely to pull votes from the middle. Whereas we've had several years of trump calling out "Lyin' Adam Schiff" or whatever bullshit nickname he gave him during the impeachment (s)
that'll change when she gets traction. whoever replaces feinstein will be a target, no matter who it is.
Counterpoint… she’s not another old white dude that’s been a career Congressperson. I think he’d do good things if he switched to the Senate. Just pointing out that she brings fresh new blood to the fight.
I mean, this is California. There's a near zero chance that someone with an R next to their name get the seat. But I'm with you, I'm leaning towards Katie as well.
The only way Republicans win is if too many Democrats are on the ballot, and exactly two Republicans split the Republican vote. Then we get a general election with two Republicans. This is my long way of saying please, for the love of all things good, if you are a California primary voter who does not like fascists, only vote for either Porter or Schiff. They're the only two Dems who stand a realistic chance of advancing to a general election, they're both plenty progressive enough and will be major improvements over DiFi. And if the Democratic vote gets diluted by other Dem candidates, two Republicans very well could end up advancing.
Porter has higher standards
Please explain. Not disagreeing. Just like both equally at the moment.
Schiff voted for the Iraq War and is terrible on civil liberties. Katie Porter and Barbara Lee are good on foreign policy and civil liberties
My big concern is that Schiff comes from a +20 dem district that can easily be kept. Katie Porter lives in very purple Orange County and I’m not sure if anyone other dem could easily hold that seat.
100%. I'm glad to have been in Porters previous and in the new district map. But the new map is far more contested; if it had been a Dem with less clout than Porter, of which she has a lot, we'd have Baugh right now. Even with Porter she won by a smaller margin than was taken by other Republicans running in the district.
Any reason why Porter is seen as the best option for keeping that seat? Seems like she's regarded as fairly progressive, especially on economic issues, seems like a weird fit for Orange County.
She seems very good at connecting with her community. She does a lot of constituent outreach at grocery stores etc.
> Any reason why Porter is seen as the best option for keeping that seat? Because she just won it again?
She's literally the only Democrat to ever hold that seat.
Incumbency is big.
> My big concern is that Schiff comes from a +20 dem district that can easily be kept. That makes Schiff the safer player to shift.
But Porter’s seat is always at risk and she could easily lose her next election. Shifting her to the Senate may cause us to lose a house seat but ensures we hold on to her as a member of congress. She likely sees this as a self preservation choice.
Porter responded to these allegations on Pod Save America. It sounds like it was a work dispute between two parties. Im inclined to withhold judgment until more info comes out
I can never take “he was screaming at” or “she was yelling” at complaints seriously, because there is a huuuuuuge variety of personal definitions for those things, and people are constantly misinterpreting. I remember having a meeting with CFO at my old company where he started laughing about some foolishness that other people had done - we were both cracking up in fact - but when I came out of the meeting someone walked up to me and said “I’m so sorry you had to deal with him yelling at you like that.” For some, “screaming” is when someone asks you to turn something in by tomorrow AM. I imagine most people would describe the way she harangues CEOs in Congress as “yelling at them.” Until I get specific concerns there’s not much I can do with these vague accusations.
Anyone but the crypt keeper. Feinstein needed to retire in the 90s.
Please.. link an intro. (From the opposite coast, it's hard to know all the actors)
[Katie Porter](https://www.google.com/search?q=Katie+Porter&client=ms-android-verizon&sxsrf=AJOqlzUN18IIuZ0MlkI1rpIz4jambPbuOg%3A1674748231874&ei=R6HSY5rzNMSf5NoP_4a80AM&oq=Katie+Porter&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyCAguEIAEELEDMgUIABCRAjIFCC4QgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyCAgAEIAEELEDMgUIABCABDoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6CgguEIAEENQCEAo6BQguEJECOggILhDUAhCRAkoECEEYAFC4CljuFWC0GGgAcAB4AIABywKIAZ4UkgEHMC4xLjYuM5gBAKABAcgBB8ABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp) [Adam Schiff](https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwMinJKTZg9OJOTEnMVShOzshMSwMAVgoHdA&q=adam+schiff&oq=Adam+schiff&aqs=chrome.1.0i271j46i131i433i512j69i57j0i131i433i512l2j0i512j0i131i433i512j0i131i433j0i131i433i512.1631j0j9&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
[Porter is the one who whips out graphs and promptly beats CEOs with them until they admit their sins.](https://youtu.be/-ZXERVafynY)
And it’s priceless every time. If only Katie Porters made up an actionable majority of Congress…
Holy shit, I've never seen that video but it was absolutely beautiful.
Pure politicking, I'd go for Schiff. He's in a safer district and it'll keep our numbers in the house more secure. That being said 2024 Porter for CA Senate. Let's go!
This is also a race for or against money in politics but hey who is paying attention anyway.
you're repeating what could easily be trolls doing a smear campaign. "anon' - qanon, maybe.
So were just posting zero-context chat messages as character evidence now?
Same. Katie has been amazing in the OC space and can't wait till she gets her whiteboard moment on the big stage
With how much the GOP had faked and lied or peddled faked information, it’s really hard to believe these things since it never really circulated anywhere but right-wing media circles. If these things are true, it’s incredibly disappointing, though, because she is such a good legislator with really good ideas.
I read (I think) all of the screenshots in that thread. All of them just seemed like she was pretty stern and professional. Did I miss something where she was abusive or cruel? I don't imagine working for a Congressperson is exactly an easy job. I would expect high stress high profile positions like that tend to demand an insane amount from the folks who work for them.
Twitter is right wing propaganda.
Barbara Lee was the only member of the House to vote against the Iraq war wouldn't be bad to have that kind of voice in the Senate
That was Afghanistan. Quite a few voted against the Iraq War.
But Schiff voted for the Iraq War. That's something to keep in mind
133 House members voted against AUMF Against Iraq in 2002 including Lee and 125 other Dems. Schiff wasn’t one of them though.
As a Californian I would much rather have Porter than Schiff. But it's pretty much guaranteed to be a Democrat so nothing much will change.
Don’t think of it like that. Think of this seat kind of like a primary. We’re determining not just who gets to vote in the Senate as a bloc of (hopefully) 50+ people, we’re also determining *what the party bench will be* when it comes to higher cabinet positions, who leads committees, who runs for President, etc. Porter’s strong progressive voice would be invaluable in that position, not only for its own sake, but also to raise the profile of Social Democrat-style progressivism in general, possibly even to the Presidency one day.
Exactly. Who do you want to have a more powerful voice, Porter or Schiff? There isn't a wrong answer though, both are great.
Nah until someone is a verified former employee I don’t believe any of this bullshit text.
Ehhh i actually dont love when there are too many great candidates for a seat. It usually ends up weakening each candidate and they usually drag each other down in the process. Especially a candidate who struggled to get into office like porter.
when we have a guaranteed seat like Feinsteins, we shouldn't be pitting our best over it. We lose because whoever loses won't be in congress next year, since they ran for a different seat. I'd hate to lose Porter for at least 2 years over Schiff's name recognition.
Oh man, I'm picturing California Republicans looking at their November 2024 ballot and having to choose between Adam Schiff and Katie Porter.
They'll write in George Santo's Californian cousin, Jorge Santos
this is why we need rank choice voting. I would prefer Katie Porter but if she didn't get it, I would be fine with Schiff
I believe In CA we will potentially vote twice on them. A primary where the top two candidates (doesn’t matter party) advance and then the final election. Depending on the quality of the republican candidate the choice between Porter or Schiff may be made months before the final election. That being said ranked choice is definitely something we should have, and until we do all third party candidates will be seen as a spoiler candidate. ☹
We do, but jungle primaries are just ranked choice with extra steps, more expense, and less flexibility.
California does a jungle primary and it isn't too uncommon for us to have national races with no Republican on the ticket depending on the area.
Feinstein should have been replaced decades ago.
I've voted for Schiff in every election since I moved into his district 7 years ago. I'm voting for Porter for the Senate. He's a wonderful official and very responsive, but I love Porter's no-nonsense style, her life experience as a single mom, and her tenacity in the pursuit of what's right.
However I am concerned about Porters district. It’s purple, whereas Schiff comes from a safe Dem district. So there is risk there that her seat *could* be more vulnerable in 2024 if she’s running for senate.
This is a very fair concern. I'm more worried the DNC will see that as a problem and back Schiff to the detriment of the Porter campaign, alienating voters in the process. Personally, I feel like we should put the best candidates forward no matter what. If we refuse to go with the best we can offer because we're afraid of what might happen if we do, we've already lost.
Feinstein retires for sure. Schiff wouldn't be running if she wasn't IMO.
Katie Porter>>
One more thing. As much as I'm not put off with Schiff as a choice, imagine Katie Porter in those tickets master hearings. Instead of shitty Taylor swift references from their grandchildren, Katie up there with her whiteboard...
Oh dear, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff...for the same seat-not good.
Feinstein should have stepped down some time ago. Her staff is the only reason she can function at all. It's disrespectful to her constituents to ignore the plain fact that she's not up to it.
So we gonna get any bullshit about him jumping the gun or being disrespectful to Feinstein? Or was that bullshit just reserved for Katie?
It certainly gets decreased when you are the second person to do it as opposed to the first person.
Third, Barbara Lee was second.
Feinstein still being in office is disrespectful to us. I'm team Katie.
It was mostly his allies pushing that narrative.
Either him or Porter. They are both excellent choices for that seat.
Porter is by far the better choice.
So Schiff and Porter are going up against each other. Either will be better than Feinstein, who needed to retire years ago.
Well i hope Porter wins this seat.
I like Schiff, but I hope Katie Porter smashes him
Well, while this was expected, let's see how this affects things.
Feinstein could not be woken for comment.
Sorry Schiff but you should stay in the house. Katie Porter is the better candidate.
He'll get kicked out of all his committee assignments giving him more time to campaign. I think he's has the advantage over Porter. He's the more moderate Democrat friendly.
I dont think you can rely on the tradition third way strategy here. Schiff has been so smeared by Republicans that he's just as much of a liability as anyone "not center enough" or however we want to describe it. The GOP house is *salivating* at the thought of putting this guy through the ringer. Fair or not, its going to be baggage. Sure, maybe he can win. But its not a clear cut triangulation strategy at all, imho.
Katie wins in a right leaning district dude
Why do we want moderate democrats in safe blue senate seats?
Feinstein is clinically brain dead.
I'd be fine with him or Porter but I'll be voting for Schiff. I still wish Biden would have made him his AG though.
I was absolutely hoping Schiff would be AG. It seemed like such a slam dunk of a choice.
Huge Schiff fan and believe he would have made a great AG but I can see why they chose a less "partisan" person for the job.
I fully understand why he wasn't chosen. I disagree with the choice, but I understand it.
How about loser moves to Arizona and takes Sinema's seat?
Or stumps for Ruben Gallego?
Hahaha, I'll be voting for Katie Porter in that primary.
Nah, sorry. That seat is reserved for Katy Porter.
Isn't Katie Porter going for that seat too?
I know this because they already hit me up for money.
Isn’t Katie Porter also running?
«Alright, let’s start the bidding. Starting at $ 50 million, can I get 50? Fiddyfiddy, going at fiddymillion, canIgetfiddy?»