Is it really that provincial? I can imagine many reasons to prefer one over the other, but state geography wouldn’t occur to me.
Yes and no. It’s not that provincial. But it is a bit in certain circumstances. It’s not going to be straight regional voting, but it could be regionally weighted. Lee has been around forever, California is a very large state and folks tend to vote more for people they know closer to home.
There is no doubt in my mind that if we assume a normal campaign where Lee does not stumble badly, she can pull more votes proportionally in the Bay Area (especially the East Bay) than Porter or Schiff. Lee’s long local tenure in a deep midnight blue area gives her a stronger local power base than most - she just won reelection with 90.5% of the vote in her district. 90.5 - Porter won with 51.7%. In a primary in particular that kind of strong, united base is a genuine advantage somewhat diluted only by the great size of the state.
The “Bad Boss” problem looks to be nothingburger.
I would say that the House/Senate aide/intern ecosphere is full of junior Veep wannabes trying to make names for themselves. But ultimately, having an accusation come from someone who then appears on Fox makes me deeply suspect of the accuser’s motives.
Another complicating factor is California’s blanket primary. The last open seat Senate election (2016) resulted in two Democrats making it to the general election. If Republicans prove as feckless this time, you could see some interesting maneuvering among Porter, Lee and Schiff as they try to get themselves and whomever they judge to be the weaker opponent into the general election.
I’m happy. As a L.A. county resident, I’ll finally get to vote for her!
I wish they had Cub Scouts for senior citizens so she could be my Den Mother 