I like Porter, but that annoys me. Why is being a “career politician” either a bad thing or incompatible with being a minivan-driving single mom?
Because touting yourself as a “career politician” makes it harder to actually become one. Most voters just don’t like how it sounds.
It also has the marginal advantage of being true.
This is true in all “blue” states. In Oregon, Portland and Salem are blue, but the vast majority of real estate is crimson once you clear the city limits. Same with Washington. There may be an exception out there, but I haven’t seen it.
Vermont is as blue as it gets, and AFAIK is mostly rural. That’s the only counterexample I can think of offhand.
As much as “President Porter” has a nice ring to it I don’t think there is any realistic chance she would ever capture a nomination, nor does she seem particularly interested in politics for its own sake to the extent required to run for high office. She’s considered a pretty grating presence even within the Democratic party (as one of the few Congresspeople who refuses to solicit or accept corporate donations or support, she scares the hell out of people who are beholden to their masters) and frankly doesn’t have the kind of charm or charisma of Elizabeth Warren even though they share the same ethics and determination. Which is fine; Porter is doing great in Congress with her whiteboard, list of facts and figures, and the ruthless prosecutorial instinct to cut through the bullshit, “reclaiming my time”, and forcing witnesses to answer direct questions instead of mealy mouth their way through a hearing without saying anything of substance. Under a Democratic president she could potentially take over running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or even potentially be nominated as Secretary of the Treasury (although whether she could ever get enough votes even if Democrats had a solid hold on the Senate is another question) but a presidential run is unlikely.
Personally, I think that Gretchen Whitmer or Tammy Duckworth should take a run at the presidency in 2024 or at least be on ticket even if Biden is nominated.
Because “career politician” is synonymous with being entrenched with special interests and entitled to lecturing people about how they should think instead of asking them what they want from government. Example: Dianne Feinstein. In Porter’s case, it’s literally true; she got involved in politics because she was disgusted with her representation and how little Congress in general was doing to reign in speculative investing by banks and corporate influence in politics. She doesn’t have much of a taste for party politics or the “Washington scene”, and is there to get shit done instead of fucking around on the taxpayer dime or using her influence and insight to enrich herself which is what the vast majority of “career politicians” do.
Stranger
Yes, I know that “career politician” has a negative connotation, but why? Running the government is an important and complicated job. If I’m having brain surgery, I want a career brain surgeon, not a spunky mom with a whiteboard. Bernie Sanders isn’t entrenched with special interests or interested in the Washington social scene, either, but it would be hard to argue that a guy who’s been in Congress for 33 years isn’t a career politician.
Using the phrase as a pejorative just reinforces the GOP narrative that government is inherently bad and the people involved in it are crooks. I would prefer if Democrats wouldn’t do that.
Porter is a bit more than a “spunky mom with a whiteboard”:
Career politicians, even those that are initially well intentioned have a way of becoming influenced and ultimately corrupted by the process, and while no small part of that is the corporate money influence it is also just situation of having and retaining a lot of power. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t elect people who are experienced in the political process; both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were relative neophytes when it came to the sausage-making process of politics, and it showed in their distrust of experienced advisors and inability to accomplish any substantial part of their respective agendas, whereas an experienced mover like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton was able to engender respect and compromise even in stalwart opponents by knowing how to appeal to their self-interest (admittedly, in a less divisive time in American politics but they were both still sharp operators). We should be skeptical, however, of politicians who seek to remain in office even when they are not really representing the will of their constituents, and are using their access and influence to their personal enrichment, e.g. Joe Manchin, Nancy Pelosi, and the vast majority of the GOP.
Stranger
Whitmer is my first choice for ‘24 at this point.
And, yeah, I realize that a Porter for President in my future is probably a pipe dream. But I nevertheless applaud this progression in her resume.
Maybe so but I remember watching a few of her whiteboard videos. She is awesome.
I would vote for her.
I would move to California to vote for her.
nm I was wrong
That’s the first thing I thought of when I got a text from her yesterday. Besides being peeved that she’s spamming my phone in addition to my email, I want any rep. from OC to just hang on to their seat.
I think this is right. An open California Senate race is going to be enormously expensive and hotly contested. There’s only been one open Senate seat race since 1992, and there are a lot of ambitious Democrats chomping at the bit for the opportunity.
By declaring now, Porter puts pressure on Feinstein to clarify her intentions. But she also gets a jump start on her potential competitors in locking down donors, endorsements and key campaign staff. I expect we’ll see more Democratic candidates jumping in sooner rather than later.
Damn, i hope Feinstein steps down. She’s too old, and probably too senile, for the job.
I don’t know Porter, but she sounds promising.
Barbara Lee and Adam Schiff are also running for the seat, though they haven’t yet formally declared. It’s going to be a bruising contest.
There have been reports that Feinstein has been having mental problems. Things like not remembering things she was just told, people having to reintroduce themselves to her several times in the course of long meetings, asking people the same things over and over. . . Here are some articles about it:
Feinstein has insisted there’s nothing wrong with her, but I’m sure that party insiders would like her to step down before she becomes too much of an embarrassment. Feinstein may go down fighting, but at this point a primary challenge would be a good thing. Katie Porter is just the first to announce. There will probably be others.
Feinstein’s mental capacity has been questionable for the better part of a decade, and even before that she’s been more of a hinderance than a help in being thoroughly devoted to protecting the vested interests that fund her rather than serving her constituents first. Regardless of the state of her cognitive faculties, she needs to go.
As for Porter, example in action:
“I think you’re an excellent questioner, so my answer is ‘Yes’.”
Stranger
In a taste of one line of the criticism Porter may face during her Senate campaign, Politico has an article about complaints that have been lodged against her that she’s a “bad boss” and treats her staff poorly. The allegations are almost all anonymous, and I’m doubtful how much of an impact they would actually have on the campaign trail.
The race is getting more complicated. Barbara Lee has jumped in. She’s a progressive icon in the SF Bay Area, was short-listed to replace Feinstein by Newsom in the event Feinstein retired/was incapacitated and may have a strong tactical advantage in the primary if the field remains smaller. If Porter and Schiff end up divvying the SoCal vote, Lee could swoop in based on a strong showing in the north.
She’s no spring chicken herself at 76, but 70’s is no impediment to higher office as we’ve repeatedly seen.