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.”

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The fuck else do you call it?

    Her Democratic opponent spent millions in Democratuc donations on the Republican opponent to stop her.

    Fuck him, fuck California and fuck the Democrats.

    Fuck the Democrats entirely.

    I’m not paying Democrats to pay for Republicans to be competitive.

    • olympicyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      In a normal primary Schiff would be running against Porter straight up, but California has a top two system. It was always obvious that a Democrat was going to win the seat so he had to beat her now to seal the win. I don’t fault him for his tactics, he didn’t do anything to harm Porter’s future electability but her comments made her sound entitled, which might actually hurt them. The amount of money spent is a real problem but so is the low voter turnout, around 30%. Republicans did a better job getting to the polls and Porter didn’t run a strong race.

      • tb_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It was always obvious that a Democrat was going to win the seat

        Just like how it was obvious Trump wasn’t gonna win in 2016?

        Making the voice of an opponent louder just because you don’t want to go up against one of your own team is very disappointing. Sure, maybe it worked out this time, but it also means the republicans will have a larger base next election. How often can this game be played?

        • olympicyes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not really the same thing. Biden beat Trump in California by 30 points in 2020. Hilary did the same in 2016. Not a chance Garvey wins in a national election. He only did as well as he did in the primary because we had something like 25% voter turnout.