• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    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…

        • just_another_person@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

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

            • just_another_person@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day 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.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    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).

  • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day 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.