this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
91 points (95.0% liked)

politics

18898 readers
3089 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The first step for the candidates running in next year’s California Senate race is to quietly try to spook newly appointed Sen. Laphonza Butler into not running at all.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s just so fucking hypocritical and denigrating that one of two Sentators for California isn’t even from the state. She’s from Maryland and knows Maryland issues - she can’t represent the issues of the state of California. She has no legislative or elected office experience whatsoever.

Hell, Newsom as much came out and said she was appointed just because she’s so close to the Democratic Party machine.

Last election, Dr. Oz was a “carpetbagger” and evil for living in NJ and running in PA - it was a core piece of the Fetterman campaign. It resonated with voters - Fetterman won.

So, Republicans do it = bad, Democrats do it = so progressive, don’t question it.

I haven’t read one thing yet that shows she’s at all familiar with California or the issues facing the state. Just how progressive and LGBTQ and Black she is.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Yeah there's some odd things going on here. I can't imagine that newsom couldn't find a better appointment. I'm starting to lean towards he doesn't like the people in the field and he wanted someone who knows how to raise money. Hopefully there's a good investigative journalist working the story right now.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She checks many of the boxes on the identity politics ‘Bingo’ card that attract white college-educated liberal voters. She’ll also draw black votes, again, if she runs for a full term. The first constituency is more highly correlated with Porter, the latter more with Lee (who a recent LA Times poll shows at 7% versus 20% for Schiff and 17% for Porter).

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Does any of that identity politics really matter in California? I'm not well versed in the Californian Republican party but is there a Republican who could beat any of the Democrats you mentioned? This could be as simple as newsom knows her and likes her or knows them and doesn't like them. I'm not sure. Something is odd about this appointment but my gut says it isn't purely identity politics

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The initial reason Newsom chose Butler is that she wasn't running for the seat.

See, when Harris became the VP, Newsom appointed a white mane to replace her. This pissed off a lot of people who are really interested in identify politics.

So Newsom made a promise to appoint a black woman if he had the opportunity. (Which seemed likely)

So the obvious candidate would have been Lee. A black woman who is part of the Progressive Caucus.

There are two problems that came up. First is that Nancy Peloci. Wanted to give the seat to Adam Shift.

This is an issue that can mostly be ignored, but she put the weight of the party finances behind his campaign.

The second issue is that Lee was running for the seat, but trailing in the polls.

Put those together and you have a situation where if Newsom had appointed Lee, he would have been accused of putting his thumb on the scales of the election. So he appointed Butler, likely under the impression that she would serve out the end of the term and step aside.

That she is not, is kind of scummy.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Well summarized.

Not to mention she helped Newsom bail out PG&E, advised Uber when California was trying to force gig companies to treat their employees fairly, and she worksled for the lobbying entity, Emily's List - an organization meant to help women in races, but gave Biden heaps of money.

She's none of the things important to progressive agendas. She's a sham appointed by a shit bag.

I am tired of thinking the "left" in this country will do right by us. I realize we're all in this alone.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I feel like one of the problems of being in politics is it attracts too many people with huge egos, who want to make the story all about them. While I have no doubt she is qualified for this she was still basically given this job. It would make her a lot of enemies in the party if she went out and pushed her luck to try and win the seat outright.

She's not even 50 yet, I don't think there is anyone in their mid-40s who can put "former US Senator" on their resume. I bet if she declines to run, she can have any job or appointment she wants after this, particularly in California State government. And she will have at least one US Senator as an ally, too. Withdrawing now could be a path to being a Cabinet Secretary in the Harris administration, with plenty of time after that for a Congressional run.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

the Harris administration

Excuse me, but what the fuck did you just say? The what administration?

There is a better chance of aliens landing on my front lawn, knocking on my door, and telling me I won the publishers clearing house than there is of Kamala Harris winning a presidential election.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You got me, I was trolling, but only a little bit.

As the sitting VP, she is the next one in line in the Democratic Party apparatus. So all the same folks who made sure Hillary got it in 2016 and Biden in 2020 will be pulling all the same tricks in 2028.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Generally speaking, I would agree. However, Kamala Harris in no way has the same level of institutional power that Clinton or Biden brought to the table.

Plus, she is normie poison in a general election, and we already proved that she gets eaten alive in an open primary contest, absolutely no question about that. Even Gavin will come for blood if it means getting a chance at the big chair. She has, and I mean this literally, a 0% chance of ever being elected President of the United States.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

We said very similar things about Donald Trump in 2016, and he managed it. It's uphill for Harris, but she will benefit from having all that time watching Biden and maybe learning how to have a personality herself in the process.

And who knows? She might also have the benefit of incumbency herself if Joe wins another term, but that term outlasts his ticker.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We said very similar things about Donald Trump in 2016, and he managed it.

Speak for yourself. I knew he was dangerous from the very beginning. I thought Hillary running would end up exactly the way it did. Everything in that election reinforced my belief that progressive populism focused around labor is the way to win back the country, and unite people.

It's uphill for Harris, but she will benefit from having all that time watching Biden and maybe learning how to have a personality herself in the process.

Unlikely, and I think the fact they have hidden her away from the media due to her detrimental reflection on the administration speaks for itself.

And who knows? She might also have the benefit of incumbency herself if Joe wins another term, but that term outlasts his ticker.

Why would you even want that? I'm tired of the next man up bullshit. It's time for someone to earn their keep instead of this careerist/institutionalist garbage.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is a better chance of aliens landing on my front lawn, knocking on my door, and telling me I won the publishers clearing house than there is of Kamala Harris winning a presidential election.

This is true only if you're stuck inside the Twitter bubble and refuse to step outside into real life

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're confusing me for you because:

  • I'm not a Twitter / X user

  • I actually understand the state of American politics, and accept the reality that pandering to normie/centrist/independent political ideology is what wins elections

  • I care more about moving this country forward than virtue signaling about having a female president

  • I understand how uncharismatic and unpopular Kamala Harris was/is/will continue to be

I actually cannot understand how someone could be so blind to reality. Hillary Clinton already tried to play queen maker on her own behalf while being a historically unpopular candidate because she thought she was OWED her turn in line.

In the process she propped up Donald Trump as a spoiler candidate, rigged the DNC against Bernie Sanders, and fucked this country into the timeline we have been stuck in for the last (almost) decade.

I'm not laughing because I know this brand of identity politics camouflaged as faux progressivism leads to failure. I care about political results in the real world, and if you think I'm the one in the bubble you need to wake up and smell the napalm.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't referring specifically to you but I also can't take you seriously with that absurd "rigged the DNC" nonsense. You sound like trump.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh, sick burn 🔥 You really showed me with that zinger ☠️

Just because Donald Trump is an authoritarian asshole doesn't mean that he can't also call a spade a spade when it suits his interests. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

Now for the rest of the people who need a refresher course on the 2016 election, here are some either liberal leaning or non-partisan sources to back up the claim that the Clinton campaign was definitely manipulating the DNC via Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as other means as far back as 2015.

Lastly:

I wasn't referring specifically to you

Yes you fucking were, but you clearly lack the courage of your convictions. Which, quite frankly, I find to be in no way surprising.

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If she wants to get into politics I think she would be foolish not to try now.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right, but it doesn't have to be in this particular job....

[–] Darukhnarn@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why do people need to be close to death in order to be eligible?

[–] ech@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

That's not what they said.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If she actually runs it's going to be clear that this was all meant to stop Barbara Lee from winning.

Silly progressives. Haven't you learned your lesson yet?

[–] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Maybe. I don't know. That's definitely possible. Butler was an odd choice that's for sure.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Why do progressives think they're entitled to everything though?

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not everything, but the Senate position for the most progressive state in the country, that seems fair. Due to the way the Senate was designed progressives are underrepresented. There are probably more progressives in California then the whole population of a couple smaller states combined, and they get no representation. Harris at least gave a little before she shifted right to try and become president, but now even she's gone.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago

I mean Barbara Lee is a boomer...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ConstableJelly@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is so fucking exhausting.

Lee – who went from hoping for the appointment to, in recent weeks, making a political issue out of knocking Newsom on the assumption she wouldn’t get it – spent Monday and Tuesday reaching out to fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus to urge them to stick with her, even though there is now another Black woman in the spot. Schiff’s initial response was to trumpet the big lead he has in fundraising, which aides were hoping would get both Butler’s attention and that of reporters busy assessing her chances. California political insiders have noticed anti-Butler opposition research appearing and a new anti-Butler account on X, and have been pointing fingers over who is behind them. False rumors that Newsom offered others the appointment first have been floated, too.

Patting backs, making nonsense announcements to get media attention, oppo research... I mean, I'm not naive, this is the way things go. But we're never going to get the best-qualified people to serve in government while campaigning requires this much machination unrelated to the actual merit of the candidates. Maybe some time around our evolution to a full Type 1 civilization we'll have figured this out.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nah, we won't make it to a Type 1 civilization. We've found the great filter and it's US politics

[–] ConstableJelly@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

By jove I think you might be right.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago

Barbara Lee has always been a self-serving narcissist, tbh

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


But while they briefly paused public politicking until after the Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s funeral on Thursday – with Lee and Schiff flying there on Air Force 2 – they spent even this past week preparing to ramp up new endorsements and outreach that they hope will convince Butler there is not enough time to mount a credible campaign, and that she could risk being known now for her historic appointment to serve the remainder of the late senator’s term through January 2025 to being known for coming in third, fourth or even fifth in a race that has its first round on March 5.

(The top two candidates, regardless of party, move on to a November election, and the race is set to get another wrinkle next week, when former Dodgers and Padres first baseman Steve Garvey is expected to launch his campaign as a Republican.)

Butler had a meeting with a small group of advisers the day after being sworn in to do a preliminary review of polling data as part of what people familiar say is a push to make a decision by next week.

But Butler is well-known among California insiders, with top Democrats in the state telling CNN, “She does not do things that she cannot be successful at – so my guess is she would not have put herself in this spot if she didn’t think she had a shot at winning an election.”

Butler has multiple clocks ticking on her at once: She has to build a new staff out of the people who had stayed on as caretakers for the long-ailing Feinstein; she has to start making public appearances in the hopes of getting attention in a big state where her name ID is effectively zero; and she has to do it all while learning a complicated job in the middle of what could grow into a full-blown congressional crisis in the aftermath of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s defenestration, all without any prior experience in office.

Several California political insiders speculated that a fundraising disadvantage could be overcome if a few wealthy donors funded an independent expenditure effort on Butler’s behalf, especially given that even Schiff’s $32 million head start isn’t that much in a state where campaign operations and television commercials are so expensive.


The original article contains 1,970 words, the summary contains 383 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!