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.”

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Do they? Or does spending millions of dollars campaigning simply effectively manipulate?

      The media is a powerful tool, controlled basically exclusively by money.

        • girlfreddyOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Spreading lies vs the truth?

          Just a guess.

            • girlfreddyOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              You asked how I’d define it so I did.

              • Tja@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                In the context of someone being accused of manipulation to win an election. If they lied it could be, if not maybe they just had a better message.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’d be careful of this “I am immune to propaganda” line of thinking.

        You’re basically accusing everyone who didn’t vote the way you wanted of being brainwashed fools, and that’s how the progressive bloc spectacularly failed to capture the black vote in 2016 and 2020.

        If your line of thinking forgets that the other person is a person who is actively making decisions, and who’s agency is not changed for deciding differently than you did, you’re wrong.

        That’s how we get white progressives insisting that gun toting Redcaps will totally join the progressive cause if the gays and the POC and the women would all just shut up and stop talking about identity politics.

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You’re reading a lot into things I did not say.

          An appeal to popularity without a critical eye on the impact of massive media spending is far more dangerous than what you’re accusing me of.