LA Times columnist Mark Barabak comments on the victory last night of Adam Schiff in the primary race for US Senate in California:
By choosing Schiff, a Burbank congressman who was the most moderate of the major Democratic candidates — and thus most Feinstein-like — [voters] rejected the leftward swerve promised by two more liberal alternatives, Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland.
I don't think this is quite right. It's true that, objectively speaking, Schiff is more centrist than Porter or Lee. But Schiff made his name by leading the Democratic investigation of Russiagate, sparring with conservatives like Devin Nunes along the way, and soon after as the lead prosecutor in the first Trump impeachment. Then, in a stroke of great timing, he was censured by House Republicans last June in a party-line vote that made him a Democratic hero:
When it was time for Schiff to come to the front of the chamber to be formally censured, immediately after the vote, the normally solemn ceremony turned into more of a celebratory atmosphere. Dozens of Democrats crowded to the front, clapping and cheering for Schiff and patting him on the back. They chanted “No!,” “Shame!” and “Adam! Adam!”
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., read the resolution out loud, as is tradition after a censure. But he only read part of the document before leaving the chamber as Democrats heckled and interrupted him. “Censure all of us,” one Democrat yelled.
Schiff's moderate views helped him raise lots of money, but his public persona is much more combative and liberal. Add to that the fact that he and Porter barely disagreed about anything and I'm not so sure that Schiff's moderation was really a big factor. He had better name recognition than Porter; more money than Porter; a cynical campaign to boost the Republican candidate and box out Porter; and a reputation among voters as a fighter. That was probably what did it.
I never got the feeling that Porter was left of Schiff, either. She keeps falling for the BS internet censorship bills bills that are used against queer people.
Surprised she didn't do better, tho.
Either Schiff or Porter would be great to have in the Senate. Too bad they're both in California where they had to fight each other.
Yeah, I cynically voted for Porter, to try to block the Republican.
Lee's the only one I've met, though.
"That was probably what did it."
The singular pronoun "that" was carrying a heavy load. Those were quite a list of positives for the Democratic voters to give credit to.
IMO, he played to win.
Vegan power. 😉
Yeah, well screw that. He played to win at the expense of the Democratic Party:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/california-election-results-senate-house-schiff-garvey-republicans.html
He gave prominence to a single Republican candidate and got Republicans to go out and vote. People acted like Garvey had star power but I think not. He hasn’t played baseball since 1987 and few people under 40 knew who he was. And for those who did in Northern California he was just a hated Dodger. He barely campaigned. He would have been just another Republican on the ballot if not for Shiff. Shiff just didn’t want to run against Porter so he screwed everyone with his ambition. I will hold my nose while voting for him.
How did he screw everyone? Do you think Garvey is going to win?
If November was Schiff v. Porter, you'd get droves of Republicans going out to vote for Porter just because Trump hates Schiff.
It just doesn't seem like we lost much.
Read the Slate article. Here’s a sample:
“It worked! Republicans turned out in droves—Garvey actually came in first in the race to finish out Feinstein’s term and a close second in the race for the full six years. (Why the separate ballot lines yielded differing results is unclear, but that’s what the California secretary of state’s office has tallied.)
And then those Republicans voted Republican all the way down the ticket, as voters do. The result, for California Democrats in House races—you know, Schiff’s former and would-be colleagues—was ominous. Turnout was low, but in nearly every race national Democrats are hoping to flip or protect come November, California Republicans put on performances that, if reproduced, would augur catastrophe. One Democratic campaign staffer in a swing district put it to me succinctly: “terrible Dem turnout … people ready to blame Schiff.””
Garvey can’t win in November. But Republicans had very little reason to turn out this time and Shiff gave them a reason.
"Turn out was low ... if reproduced [in November] ..." contradict each other. There is absolutely no way turn out will be low in November.
People acted like Garvey had star power but I think not. He hasn’t played baseball since 1987 and few people under 40 knew who he was.
Garvey was an icon in his playing days, in both L.A. and San Diego, and a figure with high name recognition as a long-time all-star with an MVP and World Series ring. He's also remained active at occasional Dodgers events. More people knew him than you may think.
It's a mistake to think he owes his spot on the ballot to Schiff. 538's poll average has him even or better with Porter going back at least to December. He announced in October. He's been in the news often in recent months. He got plenty of coverage out of the debate in early Feb, and in polling since mid-Feb he was pulling away from Porter.
Here's the facts. There are many millions of Republicans in California and they had one (real) candidate to support. That's who they turned out for. There are many more Democrats, but three Dem House reps running for the seat. With California's jungle primary, the odds were always that 1 Dem and 1 Rep would advance to the Nov. ballot.
Maybe Katie Porter didn't understand that. But that's no reason other candidates shouldn't have run the race to win on the field before them.
Garvey was an icon in his playing days, in both L.A. and San Diego,
He was nationally famous. I grew up back east and I remember him well from my childhood. In Southern California he must have been larger than life for a long time.
People who know Garvey are older or baseball fans interested in baseball history. Here in Northern California those who remember him from then hate him. Nobody was brought up (yet) his tumultuous personal life. He is toast in November.
And he may well have come in 2nd place without Shiff’s ads. But Shiff apparently didn’t want to take that chance by running a clean campaign. He would be in the November election either way, but he chose the low road against fellow Democrats. Too bad.
People who know Garvey are older or baseball fans interested in baseball history.
Do you know who actually gets out and votes on election day? 'Old people', as you would have them.
And there was a chance he would have beaten Porter for 2nd place without Shiff’s help. But by helping him, Shiff helped get out the Republican vote in other races. And Prop 1 is way closer than it should be and might still be defeated. Shiff being on the ballot in November was never in doubt.
But Shiff apparently didn’t want to take that chance...
IOW he wanted to maximize his chances of winning that seat. The horror!
Yeah, well screw that. He played to win at the expense of the Democratic Party:
Please. Unlike Porter, Schiff seemed to comprehend from the beginning that the real contest was the primary. She didn't. If Katie Porter didn't see that, it doesn't speak highly of her political acumen.
I prefer Democrats who know how win.
Also, given the inevitable vote splittage among three Democrats, there was always a very strong chance Garvey would slip by.
Finally, we should all rejoice we're not going to have a messy, expensive, internecine battle between Democrats from now to November.
I confess I can't see how calling Garvey "too conservative for California" is some kind of foul. I think he is too conservative for California, and he's running against the Republican, not trashing other Democrats.
But yeah, Schiff made a name for himself in the stuff you mention, and that helped him immensely.
A lot of us have been supporting Schiff for a long time. He was in a position to lead in the fight to impeach Trump and he took it. He became the de facto Democratic Party leader in the anti-Trump movement. He can be of substantial aid in the presidential election fight if he is willing to press the Russia connection, which is becoming even worse now that the House Republicans are holding back on aid to Ukraine.
Schiff comes across as soft spoken, but has a lot of political wins on his slate.
He was a genuine moral hero in 2019--2021.
@lancc
"He became the de facto Democratic Party leader in the anti-Trump movement."
I would argue that was Pelosi. It was Pelosi who had to make the decision to pursue impeachment in the first place. And it was Pelosi, I believe, who put Schiff in charge of the first trump impeachment process.
She also had to engage in actual meetings with trump and others from his administration, and she had to strike the balance of resisting Trump while still serving the country's best interests.
But she had been there before. It may be interesting to point out that Pelosi became speaker for the first time (under a Republican president) in 2006. And two years later her Democratic party had full control of the Federal government (House, Senate, and Presidency).
She became speaker for the second time (under a Republican president) in 2018. And two years later her Democratic party had full control of the Federal government. Again.
There are lots of debates regarding the impact of historic figures: how much influence did they actually exert? Were they simply in the right place at the right time? But for Pelosi to pull off that trick twice, in two different political eras, it seems to me there had to be more than luck involved.
The ridiculous censure of Schiff for having the temerity to point out publically that Trump is completely compromised by the Russians was a low point for the last Congress -- a Congress that was already operating in the lowest dregs imaginable. His dignity and determination on the floor of the House during that clownshow was a good look, imho.
From outside the Golden State, my impression is that Porter does great work in the House whereas Schiff can do more in the Senate.
Um, is (can?) Porter return to the House??
No, she had to choose between holding her seat and running for the Senate, and chose the latter. It's a shame, because there's a decent chance it will flip back to R now.
It's a shame, because there's a decent chance it will flip back to R now
Yep. She deserves vastly more criticism for political selfishness than Schiff on this issue alone.
Good point.
No. She is out of it and her seat might very well go to a Republican.
Thanks, Katie!
I think this is largely true.
Porter is a national treasure, though, and if the Blob manages to keep her out of a position where she can continue to torture dirtbag greedheads, maybe Biden is too old. (Joke!)
First, it's hard to see why Porter would have been a "leftward swerve." She may fashion herself as anti-establishment, but she's only "left" compared to anyone else in Orange County. Which is really not much for California. Anyone using "left" and "right" ought to be specific about what issues they're talking about. Economics, race and social justice, women's rights, immigration, healthcare, guns, foreign policy, etc. Most Democrats probably lean to the left on some issues, and toward the center on others, and broad labels like left and right often don't make sense. And if you go to place like Govtrack, which tracks ideology of politicians, the overall scores of Schiff (0.15) and Porter (0,14) are nearly identical to each other, as well as to the late senator Dianne Feinstein (0.15). Public perceptions are usually driven by a few notable issues, not overall records.
I wouldn't call Schiff's campaign "cynical," unless by that you mean smart and effective. Porter and Garvey weren't far apart in the polling when the ad campaign got underway. What should Schiff have done? Attack Porter instead?
Smart politicians run to win election. Some campaigns are dirty and leave everyone bitter when they're done. Schiff did the opposite. He didn't go after Porter, which would have left Democrats divided when unity is needed. The downside of having Garvey on the November ballot is that it gives reason for Republicans to vote, when lower turnout of conservatives would help. But the upside is avoiding a Dem-vs.-Dem Senate battle in the largest, most expensive state, which would have sucked up tons of campaign donations when that money would be better spent against Trump and other Republicans.
Here's why I think Schiff won, and why he deserved to win. There is one overriding issue of our time. The threat of Trump and MAGA Republicans. Everything else depends on defeating the threat to our nation that comes from within (with support from others like Putin). We are fighting would-be autocrats, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis, who are in league to destroy all that this country has accomplished and the promise of all that we still can do. Every pet issue you might favor is secondary to the need to defeat the MAGA insurgency -- at the ballot box, in the courts, on school boards, and in media. The fate of the country and the world depends on it. When people in the future look back on our time, they'll find no better statement of what this country is and what we stand for than in the actions and words of Democratic reps who led the impeachment trials of Donald Trump, and in particular, the example of Adam Schiff.
Smart and effective for him. Read the Slate article I linked above before throwing up your hat in victory. I also note that Proposition 1 is currently just barely passing and could very well fail due the high Republican turn out.
Written by someone with an axe to grind, it sounds to me.
A few things:
1. Garvey was going to drive some turnout with GOPers anyway. As I recall, he was gaining and close to second in polls anyway. "Blaming" Schiff for GOPers voting for Garvey feels like sour grapes.
2. Schiff didn't "boost" Garvey except by attacking him. The sour grapes crowd makes it sound like Schiff went easy on him. Not so.
3. Porter ran a lousy campaign. That's not Schiff's fault.
4. The race was not even close. Porter finished 19-20 points behind Schiff and Garvey. When you get trounced like that, it's time to say, Thanks everybody, and good luck to Adam Schiff. Being a sore fucking loser is what Republicans do.
5. The likelihood that her Orange County seat flips blue to red is 100% on Porter. She took a gamble for personal gain, on a seat she was unlikely ever to win, and she hurt the Democrats' chances to retake the House. Thanks a lot, Katie.
Those ads weren’t “attacks”. They were obviously meant to drive Republicans to vote and to vote for Garvey. They showed a handsome candidate talking earnestly to farmers and saying how he voted for Trump. No Democrats were ever going to vote for Garvey. But the ads gave the Republicans a candidate to focus on. There were other Republicans on the ballot, some more conservative than Garvey who might have split the conservative vote.
Porter was hurt, I think, by a slew of attack ads financed by crypto-currency proponents. I’m sure they know quite well that Garvey isn’t going to win in November.
Up until he started running those phony baloney “attacks” on Garvey Shiff was running a good clean campaign accentuating his positives. He was in first place. Too bad he decided to fight dirty against Democrats.
The reason Dems wouldn't vote for Garvey was because of his support for Trump. It's good Schiff made them aware. Garvey wasn't going to himself. And yes, a celebrity candidate otherwise might appeal to voters from both parties, or we wouldn't have had eight years of Governor Arnold.
I'm still not sure what you et al. wanted Schiff to do. Ignore Garvey and go after Porter instead? That likely would have had the same outcome for 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
I get the butt-hurt if you liked Porter better. But the sour grapes does no one any good. Porter herself should show more grace. And the "fighting dirty" charge is, imo, bullshit.
Schiff didn't "boost" Garvey except by attacking him. The sour grapes crowd makes it sound like Schiff went easy on him. Not so.
This.
Also, it's smart to define your opponent as early as possible. Garvey is a freaking MAGA. This is politics 101.
Geez, Garvey had and has zero chance in California. There was no need to “define” him except to get Republicans to coalesce behind him. Garvey is a clueless cipher. Shiff wanted to run against him because he can cruise to victory.
I'm surprised, it does what Republicans always say we should do: inpatient care for mental health/addiction issues.
Of course, Republicans are why we don't have that care. And why we have entrenched housing issues.
Who did Porter target in the campaign? The establishment. Who did Schiff target? Trump. That was his major attack on Garvey, that he voted for Trump, which made him unfit to represent California. Simple, and thematically, it resonated.
Why do you think Shiff’s PAC ran the “anti Garvey” ads on Fox? I get it that you like Shiff, but I don’t get why you won’t accept the Garvey ads were a cynical ploy.
The governor, Newsom, is running ads in Florida. And other states. Maybe you don't have a lot of hits, but you might get a few by running your ad on Fox.
In the whole campaign, Porter never gave me a reason to vote for her. I don't think I saw a single ad from her.
Well said.
I can only add that Schiff probably leads Porter in getting death threats from the MAGAs by a huge margin, and if anyone deserves to be supported its him on that basis alone.
I was sorry to read above that Porter had to opt out of the House to do this, I think she is an excellent representative -- willing to take the time to actually gather facts on issues.
I criticized her above, but she was a real asset for Dems in the House. I wish she'd kept her seat than run for Senate.
I criticized her above, but she was a real asset for Dems in the House. I wish she'd kept her seat than run for Senate
Yes. She was strong on the issue of economic inequality—the one issue that undergirds everything. It's a pity she didn't assess the race in a more clear-eyed fashion.
(Frankly, she was so great on housing, though.)
*wasn't* so great.
Her seat wasn’t anything close to a shoe in. It was a surprise that she won and keeping it was going to be really difficult. Republican PACs hate her and are spending huge money to get rid of her/get the seat back. Note the attack ads against her in the Senate campaign.
Of course, she wasn't a shoe-in, but as a 3-term incumbent she had an advantage no other Democrat would have for that seat.
You claim Schiff put his own ambition over the party. That seems true for Porter here.
Let's hope Dave Min pulls it out.
Shiff helped get out the Republican vote. They really had little reason to vote in this election. Shiff gave them one. Lots of Democrats and maybe Prop 1 paid the price. We aren’t just talking Porter here. Lots of Dems are much less than happy.
I am pissed at Porter because she's fanning the flames.
She says:
"We had the establishment running scared --- withstanding 3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election."
I shouldn't have to spell out why that is an incredibly inappropriate, and in this environment, dangerous thing to say.
She ran, she lost, and her job is to concede and throw her full support behind the Democrat who is moving on to the general election.
If she had an ounce of grace, that's what she'd do. It might not feel great but that's how the game is played. This loss is revealing something about her that makes me glad she's not going to represent our state in the Senate.
If she sows division within the party, that's not helpful for Democrats.
She lost by 20 freaking points. I'm done listening to crap about Adam Schiff not running the kind of campaign she wanted him to run. The loss is on her.
Do you live in California? Do you watch TV? Billionaires did spend a lot of money on ads attacking Porter. Mostly a PAC with one of those phony ass names like “citizens for…”
In this case I looked them up and they were a PAC of crypto-currency supporters. Why do you think they spent so much money attacking her?
Why is she using the language of Donald Trump and Kari Lake about rigged elections? She has a following. People take her words to heart and she's twisting minds and turning people off to elections in a year when we need people like her followers more than ever to turn out and vote.
There is NO reason for her to say that! Not on a day when she needs to be saying this:
"I want to congratulate Adam Schiff and I want everyone who voted for me to vote for him in November."
That shouldn't be so hard.
Whiny. No class. Bitter. Sour grapes. Graceless. Those are words that describe her response to losing.
She's doing damage to Democratic unity. People will see her and remember. Instead of losing an election, she could be killing any hope to revive her career.
She didn't get half the vote totals of Schiff or Garvey. Crypto billionaires didn't tank her campaign. She was not even close.
They didn’t attack Shiff and they didn’t attack Lee. They went after Porter exclusively. And they were very effective.
Give Porter a break. She got ratfucked and was unhappy about it.
Everyone knows this is not a race and Garvey doesn’t have the chance of a snowball in Hell. Shiff ran a cynical campaign. Nobody will remember what Porter said even a month from now. Shiff will likely cruise to victory spending very little money. Padilla won with 60% and barely campaigned. I’m willing to bet most Californians couldn’t even name him as a senator. The D behind his name was enough to vote for him. Lawrence O’Donnell just called Shiff Senator elect while introducing him.
"Nobody will remember what Porter said even a month from now."
She better hope so, but that's unlikely. Her comments about a "rigged" election blew up and earned her a lot of pushback. Even the Dem senator from Hawaii was tweeting about it. Late yesterday she came out with an "explanation" and dug an even deeper hole. Her definition of "rig" is wide enough to capture Trump's complaints about 2020.
I like Porter but she went from losing an election to torching her career prospects. I doubt there's a chance she'd find a spot in the next Biden White House, where being a team player and being disciplined are critical.
"rejected the leftward swerve promised by two more liberal alternatives, Reps. Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland."
lol
this is just the refrain from the reactionary centrists regardless of an election outcome
someone won, it was because they were a centrist
someone lost, it was because they were not centrist enough
such a fun game
And not a single person has mentioned that sexism may have played a part in her loss too.
If Californians have proven anything over the last several decades, it's that they don't display much sexism—nor, really, any—when it comes to Senate representation.
Yep. California has had 12 elections for senator since 1992, and 11 of those times elected a woman.
Please. If CA has a sexism problem in our US Senate races, it is in favor of women. For more than two decades our two senators were Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. When Boxer finally stepped down she was replaced by Kamala Harris.
I like Katie Porter
In this case I think she got some bad advice. Her House races were very tight contests. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought she was behind Schiff in the polls from day 1.
Did she run to win? Or just to stop running every 2 years? Its a legit question I believe
If Biden wins re-election Porter will get a spot in Joes Administration.
In California the first two vote getters in a primary get to run in the general. So if both are Democrats both run. I’m sure Porter and Lee both believed that they could win in the general. So both ran for 2nd place.
iam
If I remember correctly Porter declared first and Schiff shortly thereafter. Initial polling showed Schiff with a lead.
At that point SHOULD she have pulled out and ran for her house seat? Even a second place finish means her House seat is up for grabs.
There were too many warning signs that Porter ignored, or got advice from her staff that she would could win. I am disappointed that she lost
Or Shiff and Lee could have pulled out of the race since they have safe seats and are important voices in congress. The super pacs hate Porter and would have spent big money to get her. Their ads against her were very effective in the Senate race, I think.
I don’t see why any of them should have stopped running in order to allow the other to win. The reason I supported the “jungle” system was because I thought it was a good way to choose between well qualified Democrats. I guess I was naive thinking the leading candidate wouldn’t pull a stunt like Shiff did.
Also, it could be said that Newsom could have appointed one of them to Feinstein’s seat. That would have avoided this whole rigmarole but to be honest I can’t blame him for not wanting to open that can of worms.
The DW Nominate scores (voteview.com) for the candidates are:
-0.677 Barbara Lee
-0.350 Adam Schiff
-0.224 Katie Porter
Negative number are to the left and positive numbers are to the right on this scale, so Barbara Lee is clearly to the left of Adam Schiff. (She's the second most liberal member in the House.) But Katie Porter is either to the right of Schiff, or she voted that way because she is representing a fairly Republican district.
I read you regularly, know who Porter is, and am generally far more aware of politics than, apparently, about 70% of people in this country. And I'm completely clueless about Schiff. On the other hand, what was the turnout for the Primary? 30%? Maybe it really is true that only the 30% of people who know more than me, and me, voted in this election.
Barbara Lee will be 78 this year which would have made her 84 at the beginning of a second term and 90 at the end. What was she thinking? Didn't we just go through this?