News

It's the use of "rigged" that throws me. I agree money in politics is bad, and adds improper influence and incentive into the whole thing. That is not the same context that we have widely seen "rigged" used in the last 8 years. The term brings to mind GOP lies about election integrity, and bogus claims of fraud.

If this was just someone I was talking to I would brush the statement off as bad word choice, and move on if there was nothing else. With it being a statement after an election loss from someone with political experience I struggle to let it slide. Word choice and presenting ideas/policy is a major part of the job she is running for, and I think such poor word choice in a statement she had every opportunity to proofread and consider is worthy of some criticism. Doesn't make her an election denier, or anything of the sort, but it does warrant a little slap on the wrist from the public.

Overall she's right, but there were many better ways to say it.

“Rigged” is a loaded word these days and it was careless of her to use it. She could’ve just said billionaires are gaming the system or some other term that gets her point across. She won twice in Orange County of all places even with district moved, but she ran a poor race. I saw no Porter signs and no one stopped by campaign for her, unlike her house campaigns.

Nasty tricks to keep a populist candidate who isn't a fan of the current capitalist system from winning? Well that certainly sounds familiar.

DNC is gonna keep doing the same thing they always have. They don’t represent democrat voters nor do they have any accountability to anyone.

Reminds me of 2016 and we're all aware of how that turned out.

I like what Adam Schiff did previously for the country, but I did not like the tactics he did for this election against Porter. Yah, I get that it's politics. But if he needed to boost a Republican in order to not go against another Democrat in the fall, then maybe he's not the best person to represent California.

Now, there's a chance Steve Garvey could win the Senate seat in November. It's a very, very small chance, but it's not zero. Why take that chance when it's so important?

I hope Katie Porter does not go away. She's exactly what this country needs. The only thing I didn't like is that her campaign pretty much copied Schiff's after he did this. She's must've known it was hurting her too much.

I’m a California constituent, and the idea of Adam Schiff representing me over Katie Porter makes me physically ill.

I liked both of them for different reasons. Yes I wanted Porter to win because I believed in her convictions to progressive policy, but if you watched the January 6th hearings, Schiff was fucking amazing.

I'm not even from there, and I'd want to vote for this woman and for AOC.

I feel like it would be good to have more women in power in general, like Jacinda Arden, Yulia Tymoshenko, Sanna Marin. I was super hoping for Magdalena Andersson for prime minister, but we got Ulf Kristersson as CEO instead...

:/

Did you just accidentally misspell 'oligarchy'?

Wait, what? Yes they do? What "open democracy" are you referring to?

Ads cost big money, and if your opponent is well-funded by super-rich pacs ... well, you lose.

The money is the issue, and the powerful have most of it.

As I tell my kids. There’s no reason to like the game, and spend your entire lives doing what you can to change it for the better, but while you’re doing that, and to change the game, you’re going to have to play it as best you can.

We’re not going to change to a utopia overnight, it has to be one little change at a time and people have to work to get to the place to make those changes first.

I'm not sure most people think that. But the ones with money and power do.