U.S. Rep. Katie Porter became a social media celebrity by brandishing a white board at congressional hearings to dissect CEOs and break down complex figures into assaults on corporate greed, a signature image that propelled the Democrat’s U.S. Senate candidacy in California.

The progressive favorite known for spotlighting her soccer mom, minivan-driving home life was trounced in Tuesday’s primary election to fill the seat once held by the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, finishing far behind Republican Steve Garvey and fellow Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.

Porter didn’t go down quietly. She immediately pointed a finger at “billionaires spending millions to rig this election.” That claim resulted in a brutal social media backlash from many who were happy to depict the congresswoman as a graceless loser.

Perhaps chastened by the criticism, Porter later clarified her initial statement to say she didn’t believe the California vote count or election process had been compromised, but she didn’t recant her earlier remarks. Rigged, she said in a follow-up, “means manipulated by dishonest means.”

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    My 2¢ - she just didn’t do a good job of getting her name out there with many Californians. Her name recognition is big with the wonks and the people in her district, but the people that bested her were doing a better job of getting their names out there. She’s a better candidate, but she didn’t run as good of a campaign.

    • girlfreddyOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Fair point.

        The lack of press is what stood out to me the most. But if I think about it for a sec, Schiff managed Trump’s impeachment, he was on the Jan 6 committee, etc. So when the press wants to talk to a democrat about Trump’s crimes, they often knock on his door. He is a talking head that people pulled anytime Trump’s name came up - which happens all the damn time.

        Porter not only had to run the ads and buy the mailers, but she needed a way to compete with the organic press that Schiff was going to get. And she wasn’t able to pull that off.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Most of the press is owned by a handful of companies that are also mega donors. It’s all an incestuous relationship.

          • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            True, but he was also getting interviewed and name dropped by a lot of not for profit journalism here because of the panels and inquiries he had lead.

            At the end of the day, people reporting on the panels and inquiries are going to want to talk to the people associated with them. Not the junior people in Congress who are on the sidelines.

            She hadn’t been in Congress for even a year before people started to coordinate impeachment proceedings on Trump. She was never going to be on those panels. She was still getting up to speed about the gig.