Yes, this doesn’t appear to be analogous to the Al Franken case, in which the “evidence” was merely that a professional comedian was attempting a joke, along with some testimony that he’d improperly put his arm around people who’d asked for a photo with him.
Whatever people think of all that, it does rather pale in comparison with the evidence against Swalwell.
He’s being urged not only to drop out of the campaign for California governor, but to resign from his House seat, too. Serious people wouldn’t be urging that unless they felt the evidence was strong.
I see that he’s already tacitly admitted to the affairs; I saw a portion of an interview where he said (paraphrasing) “I haven’t been perfect in my personal life…but that’s between me and my wife.”
At this point, he has criminal exposure. People go to prison for what he’s accused of doing (one of the women said she was bruised and bloodied following a non consensual sexual encounter)
My lawyerly advice: keep as low a profile as possible. That doesn’t exactly mesh with holding public office.
Or remember the accusations against Biden, where it turned out the accuser worked for Pravda? Like I said, when Republicans fake these things, they do a spectacularly poor job.
Altho you make a good point, it does seem odd that these allegations hit at the same time negative ads vs Swalwell hit the airwaves.
. Still, too many to lightly brush aside. It would be best if he dropped out.
Yes, very professional remark.
Also, Becerra, Mahan and every other Dem polling less than 4% should also drop out. Make it a battle between Steyer and Porter.
Remember it’s a jungle primary, any voter can vote for any candidate. Current polling seems to be strongest for the two Republicans. Before these revelations, Swalwell was gaining ground against the 2nd Republican.
If Swalwell drops out or disappears out of the race, it’s anyone’s guess who will get “his” votes. Based on history, I can’t see any Democrat except Steyer being one of the top two in the primary. That’s going to really stink, assuming then that he will win the general election, but it’s still better than a Republican (marginally).
Maybe folks can tell that I don’t like Steyer. He’s spending all this money to get elected governor of California – why?. He’s currently 68, he’ll be 69 before the general election. I don’t trust his motives, especially since he is making promises that he must know he won’t be able to keep.
I doubt it unless his money drags him across the finish line and traditionally it hasn’t worked that way in CA. Porter was far and away the most popular second choice for Swalwell supporters by at least one poll - 39% to 15% for Steyer, with lesser amounts to others. Which is what I would assume, really. Porter and Swalwell were more similar to each other as candidates than either were to Steyer. If that holds, Porter should become the new front-runner among the Democrats.
If I were take a flyer on who is most likely to emerge from the primary, I would guess it will narrow down to Porter vs. Hilton. With Porter then winning the election. But we’ll see. Everything is going to be in flux for the next couple of weeks at least.
Note: California native but not a current California resident. Whether Swalwell is innocent or guilty will be determine somewhere in the future. In the meantime, his political career is toast and he needs to get out of the way. Any of the other Democratic candidates would be preferable to having a Republican governor for the state. (I am really disappointed in Swalwell–I liked him.)
I don’t disagree with either of these, especially the second. But Porter has been losing ground recently, so the gap she has to make up, not just to beat Steyer but the second republican, has grown. Frankly, I hope you’re right.
It’s a great idea for idealists who philosophically disagree with the concept of a forced winnowing of choices to parties more than candidates. It’s ALSO usually a great idea for a party that numerically dominates the state as the Democrats have in California in recent decades. It usually absolutely sucks for the minority party if they’re a small enough minority to get swamped.
This sort of situation where you have a mad scramble between dozens of candidates where nobody is able to break out and consolidate support is highly unusual for a high-profile office like governor. Any Republican, at least conservative pro-Trump Republican, that gets on the ballot is going to lose in CA. Unless by some bizarre quirk there is two of them. If two Republicans get on the ballot it will be an entirely self-inflicted wound by the Democrats.
Much as people like to hate party machine politics (I certainly do), to be fair this is when something like a cynical party discipline would come in handy. That or a selfless ‘for the greater good’ attitude by the various competing politicians. Sadly politicians in competition for higher office are usually more ambitious that selfless and jungle primaries encourage sticking it out on a hope and a prayer.
Swalwell needs to bow out tomorrow. The rest…well, the election is still about six months out. Nobody needs to panic just yet.
Yes, I agree. BUT the GOP wants to remove him, however that drastic step needs to wait until the investigations are done. Dropping out of the race? Yes, drop out.
Have any of the other candidates taken this opportunity to make opposing rape a major plank of their platform? It’d be a refreshing change of pace to see a state start enforcing the laws against rape. For starters, how about establishing some more labs to work on that huge backlog of rape kits?
The primary in California is June 2nd, if you’re talking about the one where Swalwell, Steyer and Porter would be competing. The result is unlikely to be 2 Democratic candidates. If the result is 2 Republican candidates, there’s no point in talking about the general election.
Oh, good point - I was thinking about the general. So…okay, they need to get things straightened out in the next two to three weeks in order to leave a little time for more focused campaigning. Time to PANIC !
We, the undersigned former staffers of Congressman Eric Swalwell, write today with heavy hearts and unwavering resolve. The allegations reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN are serious, credible,and demand accountability. We stand unequivocally with our colleague, who showed extraordinary courage in coming forward to share her truth. We believe her.
What has been described is not a political attack. It is the account of a young woman who trusted her employer, who was targeted and exploited by someone in a position of power over her, and who has carried this burden for years. The corroboration reported by both outlets, including medical records and multiple witnesses, makes clear that this cannot be dismissed or deflected. No statement, no cease-and-desist letter, and no claim of political motivation changes what our colleague experienced.
We call on all relevant law enforcement authorities to open a full and thorough investigation into the allegations against Congressman Swalwell without delay. No one is above the law. Not a congressman. Nota candidate for governor. No one. We further call on Congressman Swalwell to immediately withdraw from the California gubernatorial race and to resign his seat in the United States Congress. The people of California’s 14th Congressional District, and the people of this country, deserve representation from someone whose conduct reflects the values of public service. Remaining in either role while these allegations hang unresolved is an insult to every person who has ever worked for him, reported to him, or placed their trust in him.
To our colleague: you are not alone. We see you. We stand with you. We are deeply sorry that we did not know what you were enduring, and we carry the weight of that with us. Your bravery in speaking out has given voice to what many victims have feared to say, and we are grateful for your courage. We are appalled by his actions and stand firmly with you and every victim who has come forward.
Justice is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable. We will not be silent.
The rules require the governor to call for a special election (they are compelled to do so by law) within two weeks of the seat being vacated. The primary is to be held on the ninth or tenth Tuesday after the announcement, can’t be after a holiday. Then a special election must be held on a Tuesday within a window between 126 and 140 days after the call for election was issued if it can’t be consolidated with an existing election. This is extended to up to 180 days if it can be consolidated.
So I think a hypothetical special election primary wouldn’t quite work to fit into the existing gubernatorial primary, though it might be close if it was declared this week. Best that could happen would be consolidating the special election into the November general. But since that is election day for that seat anyway, there is no point.
Now he’s out of the governor race. Good. I wish we could now wait for the House Ethics Committee and/or courts to do their work.
According the Swalwell’s fifty past staff members:
Don’t they read a daily newspaper? If they did, they would know that U.S. presidents are above the law.
It is true that a member of congress is not above the law. Many have gone to jail. Perhaps Swalwell will be added to list. This does not require Swalwell’s fifty past staff members to pile on.
In the past, there was a norm where you could retain your existing position in congress while your guilt was being adjudicated. The proposed new norm – push the member to resign before it goes to court, or even is completely investigated by the Ethics Committee, just so long as the accuser is a woman claiming sex-related violation of law, is going to come back to bite Democrats. There are going to be future cases, where a woman is asking to be believed, that aren’t as clear-cut as this one – perhaps because the accusing women all seem to be Republicans. Republicans will then say the Democrats are hypocrites – and be correct.
Then the Democrats are going to want to go back to the old norm of waiting for the House Ethics Committee and/or the jury, but the old norm will be gone.
Someone will say that the Republicans will attack the Democrats regardless. This is true. But there are some voters who respect a consistent approach. Saying that there is a presumption of innocence during investigation and trial is a consistent approach. Believe women is not a consistent approach because that is an impossible criteria to apply without giving the Republicans a veto over which Democratic men remain in congress.
Getting Swalwell out of congress is not an emergency.
!