This is aligned with the current thinking: Calif. Republican primary voters are walking into an embarrassing trap
The article suggests, as I have also suspected, that Schiff has been boosting Garvey (R) so the two of them move on to the General, leaving Porter (D) behind. Republicans may not like any of the D candidates, but they dislike Schiff most, and by voting for Garvey, will likely cement him as the next CA senator today.
No way any R gets elected here.
I think he meant that if Garvey finishes top two it will cement Schiff as the next CA senator.
Ah. I completely agree and am not happy about it.
I am a big fan or Porter and also Lee but Lee is too old.
I think the claim in that column that, “California Republicans will hate Sen. Adam Schiff much more than they would hate Sen. Katie Porter” and that they will rue the day they voted Garvey into the runoff is ridiculous. Republicans should hope Porter makes the runoff because – she made a comment about Biden being old? Either Schiff or Porter will be a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate. And Garvey may be 99% likely to lose in a runoff, but that becomes 100% if he doesn’t make the runoff.
Probably good news for Sherrod Brown:
Oops, yes. Poorly worded on my part - cement Schiff as CA Senator.
As noted, Garvey has almost zero chance of becoming the next CA Senator. Maybe the writer is a fan of Porter, and the article is a ruse to get Republicans to vote for Porter so she can get to the General (and have more time to compete with Schiff). But, I think the suggestion is Porter would be marginally less irritating to Republicans than Schiff.
Latest polling from 538
Schiff - 25.5%
Garvey - 20.4%
Porter - 18.4%
Lee - 9.1%
I do read that column as a ham-handed attempt to try to boost Porter into the runoff. But if the question is what outcome California Republicans should want from today’s jungle primary, who cares whether Schiff is more “irritating?” On 99.9% of the votes that come up in the Senate, a Senator Schiff and Senator Porter would vote the exact same way.
And sure, Garvey has little chance in the general, but in politics its always better to have little chance than no chance. Longshots do pay off sometimes. And I also think it’s important for the long-term health of your party to show that you’ll keep fighting even when the odds are stacked against you.
I suspect Nikki Haley would agree with you.
Sinema will not run for re-election. Improves the D odds significantly in my opinion.
Whoa, I didn’t expect that!:
Rep. Colin Allred won the Democratic primary in Texas to take on Ted Cruz. It’ll be a heavy lift, but he’s got the resume, resources and presence to make this a competitive race in one of the very few Senate seats where Democrats could play a little offence. But Cruz is not to be underestimated – whatever you may think of him, he is very smart and will not have the same distractions he did last time.
And the California jungle primary has been called with Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey advancing to the general election. This is Shiff’s ideal scenario, one he worked hard to manufacture.
I am sad I was hoping porter would get in. I like Katie porter.
I am a bit surprised by just how much she’s trailing. Right now (and it’s still only about half of votes counted) it’s 33% Schiff, 32% Garvey and 14% Porter.
Yeah I am reading a lot of backlash now for what he did, but come November I cannot see too many D voters actually filling-in the oval for Garvey. I think Schiff was the chosen one by the party and Porter was a fly in the ointment. A Porter-Schiff contest would have been interesting, but Schiff had the momentum from the start and that was amplified by the promotion of Garvey and the attacks on Porter. At least we wont have a D against D campaign, which would likely have been expensive, distracting, and damaging during the runup to November.
That was the election logic that was discussed last night. California is expensive. Having 2 democrats battling would have soaked up huge amounts of money needed elsewhere.
Now the dnc can put the money elsewhere.
I really like porter and would rather porter be the nominee.
I’m not sure the DNC should have put any resources into a senate race in November between two qualified Democrats.
I don’t think the DNC would have spent any money on this race, and that’s not the issue. The issue is that California democrats — the people themselves — would have been deluged with ads asking for money to support Schiff or Porter, and that money would be unavailable for more important races.