this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
78 points (96.4% liked)

politics

22829 readers
3654 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Democratic Strategists: the ratfucking will continue until moral improves.

Let's not forget that the DNC poured money into Republican campaigns via Schiff associated super PACs to exclude Porter from Californias open primary system so that Schiff wouldn't lose in November.

She'd have a chance if she ran as an independent, but if she runs as a D, the Dems consulting industry won't have her. I've worked with Porter before on both fundraising and some campaigns outside of elections and I'm confident she could win. However, if she insists on doing it inside the system...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Links on this Schiff bit? Hadn't heard that mentioned before.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This gets you started, but it went far far deeper than this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/adam-schiffs-brazenly-cynical-campaign-strategy-boosts-a-republican/

These ads were paid with donations to Democratic campaigns after getting run through the DNC money blender.

So if you made act blue donations, you may have paid to ratfuck progressives.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm reading the context of your article wrong, but as far as I can tell, there was no funding of Republican campaigns either directly or indirectly through Schiff. They did some advertising which I think is shady to disregard the other candidates and only frame it between Schiff and Garvey, but I can't find any evidence or articles directly stating that DNC or Schiff money was funneled into Republican campaigns. Even Porter didn't make that claim from what I can tell.

Here's the breakdown of the campaign contributions and spending: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-schiff/

So what he did was shitty to the other Dems hoping to be on the ticket, and it worked because it edge them out of the race, but there was no direct contributions to the GOP candidate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The difference between a direct contribution and paying for advertising to boost your campaign are practically nothing. That's the whole problem with SuperPACs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Campaign money is there to boost the candidate campaign. Not sure what else you'd expect it to be used for, but I digress.

The original comment was saying he funneled money to the GOP side, and all I'm poinint out is that does not seem to be the case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

And I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter. Unless you think SuperPACs aren't funneling money to the campaign they're supporting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Schiff is a corrupt POS. Bought and paid for.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Got my vote

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Fuck Kamala Harris. Give us Katie Porter.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm down for Governor Porter, but I also think DNC'll just back Harris following their usual bullshit "she earned it" bs. Honestly Porter is definitely more aligned with the standard Californian, especially after Harris moved even farther right trying to appeal to the general US (but let's be clear, she was still right of Porter even before that).

[–] Habahnow 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I kinda doubt that Porter aligns more with the average Californian. Remember, we are the state with the most Republicans which would also mean more moderates. I think Kamala's less liberal/progressiveness would appeal to conservatives over Porter. On the other hand, there was so much crap slung at Kamala, I could imagine conservatives not wanting her failing to comprehend that she's better aligned to their ideals than Porter.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

True, I'm wondering how many neolibs and moderates would prefer other options. Republicans likely won't care much about the primary, but those groups do make up a fair amount of California too. Though I don't even remember who Gavin was up against.

I do remember the Governator, though. Ugh

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Porter's advantage is her ability to communicate. I think she could easily convince moderates and Republicans to swing her way.

Up against someone like Harris it would be a tough battle. Harris has the money and is already well established both state and country-wide.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

A Porter adviser told NBC News that if Harris decides to run, Porter would back her.

Fuck no absolutely don't.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

She’ll have my vote. I love her determination.

[–] Habahnow 5 points 1 month ago

She's got my support. I really liked her during the debates.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

If only I lived in California!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nice but zero chance. Healthcare lobbyists and energy lobbyists in CA will spend anything to make sure she loses.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Nah she can do it, because she can win outside of SF and LA.

The liability she has are the unreliable districts in allegedly blue areas within the bay area and LA. She's no friend of the power within the California Democratic party, but the California branch of the party is deeply unpopular even among California Democrats.