Barring that Democrat has some crazy ass scandal a la Swalwell that comes out during the general. And of the remaining Democrats, Porter is the one who concerns me most in that area. Rumor is, there's more videos out there of her being . . . well, how she is.

This article's premise about that second choice is old information in what has become a mercurial race. We haven't really had any good polling since Swalwell dropped out. One expects we'll get it this week, then we can determine where we are.

I'd argue, based on the momentum I'm seeing, this may be a three Democrat race between Steyer, Porter, and Becerra. Becerra seems to be benefiting from the, "I want a Democrat, but not a billionaire," sentiment. If he suddenly seems viable, will Latinos begin feeling like their support for him will be worth it? First Latino governor in a 40% Latino state where over half of all children are now Latino would be a big deal, too.

This article very obviously elides over the fact Porter was at 8% in the most recent polling (where, granted, Swalwell was still in the race for some of the polling period, but not all of it).

Ballots start going out May 5th, and there are some debates coming up. We'll see what we see, but I think a lot of where people land is going to come down to viability. We should also see some dropping out and endorsements before the 5th. That will matter, too.

It's such an interesting race, because the meh factor has played such a dominant role this cycle. It's not only that so many candidates have been in the race, but voters just haven't seemed enthused by any of them. I thought I was alone in feeling indifferent for the past six months, but anecdotally, the feeling has seemingly become more pronounced as the race has gone on. Steyer definitely has his boosters (whether organic or astroturfed), and I do see a lot more traction for Becerra since Swalwell dropped. Porter just feels very stagnant. It almost feels like people have made up her mind about her, and what went on during the Senate race did her no favors.

Per our previous exchange, I had been leaning Steyer, but I don't know. If Becerra gets traction and momentum, maybe maybe? It feels like an aura of inevitability is building around Steyer, but the anti-billionaire sentiment is a headwind progressives seem in conflict about. It's interesting to read.

I appreciate the information!

because, we, who knows why we are lax about certain important things.

We should be showing the repugs and the country solid planning and solid control so that they will trust us to govern.

to toxic.

Some people resent she gave up her congressional seat in a swing district. But eh, Dave Min won it in 2024 even after a drunk driving story, so that may not be that big a deal.

She was an incredibly sore loser after coming in third in the Senate primary. I voted for her in that primary, but it was a bad look. She called it rigged.

Information came out from her divorce records that did not endear her to anyone. Then she got into it with a reporter who had the audacity to, I dunno, question her. Then that got compounded when she lost it a little bit on a staffer on video.

And so she rapidly earned a reputation for . . . perhaps not being a great person behind the scenes. Her shitty attitude at her own staffer was a look and a half, and with her Senate campaign behavior, that might've been just enough to sour people on her in a race where many other options are available.

Speaking for myself, my attitude towards her has definitely shifted in the past two years. When I think about the kind of personality and disposition I want in a governor, someone who acts like toxic ex-bosses I've had in the past doesn't generally go at the top of my list.

Remember how Bella Abzug was raked over coals. . .or Hillary Clinton too?

In this society, we still haven't gotten over the woman as the dutiful, behind the scenes, quiet, obedient stepford wife.

Feminism isn't "Let's adopt the worst aspects of men."

At least not in my world.

I think they're just trying to judge human behavior via a single, rather than a double standard.

They're excusing away what is a growing list of examples that she does not treat people very well and claiming it's unfair to judge her for it. Rather than abusive, she's just being assertive! There are responses down thread to that exact effect.

Maybe she just isn't it for people after she started pouring gasoline on her bridges after the Senate primary and then having it revealed that she's kind of awful to the people around her. Her response to that loss really pulled into focus that she's kind of a whole thing, and I don't know many people who were fond of it. But recognizing that would require personal responsibility and accountability that maybe - just maybe - a politician should occasionally be politic.

There is a double standard at play here. Absolutely. It's just not the one people think.

I saw the video with her staffer, and while she was not charming, it was hardly the worst example of abuse I've seen, or even personally experienced.
If you replaced Katie with a male politician in that scene, I think the overall response to it would have been milder.

.Women not so much.

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2026, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

David Axlerod was concerned that, even having been President, he would appear as an " angry black man" if he did.

As a non Californian, I did not see or hear much of the Porter/staff problem. However, if it is real, one of the most important qualities for President or Governor is the ability to hire competent staff, inspires and empower them, and retain them. The staff for a Congress person is much smaller, but the quality of the team created can make a legislator look better or worse. This should not be considered as just a personality issue as it could impact the ability to govern.

As to Emily's list, if it helps raise money for her it could be a big help. As an endorsement, the fact that she is the only woman in the race polling more than 5 percent, makes her their obvious choice, although if they had grave doubts they wouldn't endorse in the race.

the additional factor of race into the equation, so I'd say the general rule still applies.

a chart that included word pairs like aggressive and assertive where the first was most commonly used with women and the latter for men exhibiting the same behavior.

However, I do remember she had one of the highest staff turnovers.

"one of the highest turnovers", you're speaking of Katie?

but again, I think that's largely an issue between her and her staff.

A state where every major city has elected a woman as mayor, where we held up two women as Senate icons for years, where we sent the first woman vice-president to Washington after electing her to statewide office twice, where our current state senate President is a woman and former Assembly speakers have been women in the past.

Here. In this state. Are people really about to make the argument "California is just too sexist to recognize the awesomeness that is Katie Porter!"

Be real. Seriously.

Clinton is a bit of a horndog. Gore was aloof. Johnson was a warmonger, but the Great Society was fantastic.

The big question is will her policy ideas benefit California. If the answer is yes, then whatever she is personally is secondary.

If no one's perfect, who are we to judge?

Well, we're voters. And we all draw our lines. Most of us at sexual assault, clearly. But I don't want toxic people to represent me.

If you don't want to draw that line, that's fine. Democracy will manage it however it does.

And it's missing the point in why I won't vote for her. For those policies to get passed, the person has to advocate for them. They have to cooperate, compromise, stiff arm sometimes, and persuade at others.

I no longer see that capability within her.

rape being a tad more serious than speaking harshly to people..

It's about the role she's being considered for. A legislator can be an advocate. They can vote up or down. They can take stances, filibuster, and use their microphone.

An executive must run an entire branch of government. The governor will have to run the state. This requires, at least a tiny bit, a "plays well with others" component.

It's not about speaking harshly. It's about telegraphing all the red flags in your personality that screams you will not play well with others.

But who knows, maybe the kid on the beach flinging sand in everyone's face is just being really assertive. What a go-getter.

Republicans want their insane policies to pass no matter what.
Democrats seem to just want saintly and role models, even if they are weak on pretty much everything.

Sorry. I want a strong fighter. How she treats her staff if between HER and HER STAFF! Just like when some Congressman get caught boinking an intern or staffer. . .that's between the Congressman, his wife, and the staffer.

I want policies I agree with made into law, not some tepid nice guy that shrinks.

In pundit sense, I want more Mike Malloys and less tepid, I apologize for being liberal like Alan Colmes.

Says something about HER. I am a woman and a feminist. If someone acts like a complete asshole to subordinates that isn't just between her and the underlings, its a reflection of character. Like if you were on a date and the date treated the wait staff terribly, I would lose all respect for that person.

Two out of the three things help Republicans.

If I were and she were the nominee I would vote for her

"not playing well with others" thing too,
so at this point, my opinion remains the same...Besides, if she played that badly with others, she wouldn't have gotten even this far.

That's a LARGE leap in logic.

You want her to compromise? Republicans don't! Why should Democrats compromise? Republicans don't cooperate and stiff arm all the time.

Porter takes no crap from anyone. But hey. . .you keep trying to elect saints that live up to your high and mighty infallible standards. I'll stick with flawed people who advocate for what I believe in, even if they can be odious and make stupid decisions with staff.

And if she gets the Gov's nomination, are you staying home and helping Republicans by being one less Democratic vote in the race? Or will you help Republicans by voting meaningless third party. I am sick of saintly limitmus tests.

Do not categorize my words out of focus, please. I said people draw lines. I specifically said that Swalwell's violations were a line most people would draw. They were that serious.

But that there are other lines people will draw based on their own standards. Swallwell is someone we can all agree on. A toxic person is a line I also draw. Others apparently not. Context is important.

Again, this is California. The governor of California? Has to compromise with other Democrats. We have a super majority in Sacramento. It requires the skills of a cat wrangler. I don't vote for a California governor based on their ability to yell at some jack ass from the Central Valley who holds no power.

I like how "don't be abusive" is a high and mighty and infallible standard.

If this is advocacy, yikes.

Is she wrong for being abusive? Absolutely. Should it be a disqualifying attribute? Absolutely not!

But if all it took was one interview and video to drop everything she's done. . .you were looking for reasons and found them.

So I ask again, if she's the nominee for Governer, are you voting for her, staying home, or voting third party? Two out of the three help Republicans and this website's goal is to advocate for Democrats, not help Republicans.

If we cannot ask for better in Democrats here, in this state, where we are practically guaranteed to elect the Democrat in the general election, when can we ask for better?

Ever? We're never allowed? We always have to settle for the contours of vaguely shitty, but at least not a Republican?

I heartily disagree. We have an embarrassment of Democratic riches in this state.

And yes. I will ask for better. I will demand better and vote for better. It's depressing that other people won't.

But lucky me, I have several better Democratic options to choose from in this race. So voting for better Democrats won't be a problem.

Will you vote for her, vote third party, or stay home? Two out of three help Republicans.

I've been arguing up and down about the importance of a Democrat making it to the general. Yes, that includes Porter too. If there's one Democrat in the general, that's where my vote goes.

I don't loathe her. I honestly didn't even care about her all that much outside of not wanting to vote for her.

But in the past two weeks especially, her advocates seem to think, "Katie Porter is just too much woman for California" is a valid approach in this primary, and no. I'm not having that fucking nonsense. Californians, as people who reliably put Democrats in office, deserve better arguments. And people need to be level in how she ended up in her current predicament instead of excusing away abusive behavior by claiming sexism.

It's insulting particularly because this argument is being in a state that has been wildly supportive of women in politics.

Remember that Joe Biden was caught plagiarizing speeches in 1988 by by Neil Kinnock and from RFK, JFK, and Hubert Humphrey.

Based on the litmus test, Biden should have been drummed out of office and ex-communicated because he did something dishonest.

We are fucking electing people, not demigods!!!

All the candidates go on the ballot. The top two finishers, regardless of political party, move on to the general election.

I guess what I'm getting tired of is Democrats wanting saints and demi-gods.

Or that they would stay home and not vote.

I am sure that all the Democrats on this board will support a Democrat in both rounds of voting.

We are very different here in CA, even compared to other blue states, and folks don't get that. We do!

I loved Katie Porter, but her behavior in 2024 was disgraceful. I remember her making accusations about Adam Schiff that were both untrue and petty. She turned out to be a major disappointment for me.

I loved Katie Porter, but her behavior in 2024 was disgraceful. I remember her making accusations about Adam Schiff that were both untrue and petty. She turned out to be a major disappointment for me.

The staffer was only trying to correct information that Porter was relaying and got blasted for it.

I didn't love her reaction to the Senate loss, but was still in the "But I like her policies" camp.

But that staffer video and the meltdown at the reporter. Nope. It opened the window to a view of Sacramento if she were governor, and all my mind saw was future shitshow full of rancor and unnecessary discord.

We just don't need that right now.

same as you are asking me to do? Compromise and work across the aisle? If not, this interview is over because all you're doing is spewing right wing talking points about trying to paint me into a corner. No, I don't need Republican votes. I need Democrats to come out in large numbers and say California will not be run by a party of sexists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, nativists, bigots, and authoritarians by voting in record numbers for our candidate for governor, which I believe will be me. If you can be more honest in your questions, I will continue. Until then, this interview is over."

Then I would research every interview the reporter did with Democrats and Republicans to verify my "you have a double standard in questions" stance.

Reporters want Democrats to compromise. Reporters allow Republicans to get away with murder.
Republicans win = reporters talk about their agenda and how it will shape the state/country
Democrats win = reporters talk about how Democrats must work with Republicans and act as if Democrats winning is a mistake

What plays well on social media does not often play well with voters.

And it seems like Porter is just now discovering this. Which is kind of the entire problem with her political instincts in general.

Again, standards are too high for us and we eliminate and destroy our own on idiotic litmus tests.

Californians should only worry about who will make the state better, not who gives good interviews and who is a nice guy. Here's a fact from history: Most of our politicians weren't people I'd invite over for Passover seder, but I'm voting for policy, not personality.

As evidenced by some of the dismissive comments in this thread regarding her past behavior. .

That’s what she means by “rigged”, not that vote totals were altered, but that a fellow Democrat promoted a Republican candidate who was polling 4th or 5th before the ads ran.

It was a particularly detestable form of ratfuckery that revealed the vulnerabilities of the jungle primary system, and is precisely why there are only two republicans running and a dozen Dems.

Maybe in Canada, where you live, but not here.

I wasn't enamored of it either. But language does matter, and mimicking Trump's erosion of democracy language in the wake of that was not a good look. She's too smart to not know what that kind of image that verbiage places in people's minds. Democrats came out an absolutely blasted her for that one, and they were correct to do so, imo.

Even given that, it wasn't the straw. It was all the other stuff that has surfaced since. My sense is that people have seen enough and, when given other options, will go with them.

But hey, I could be 100% wrong. We'll see in June.

Or did she claim that Schiff spent millions to give Garvey free media exposure, motivating republicans and increase his chances of making the top two?

She never claimed she got actually more votes than Garvey in the primary, unlike MAGA election deniers.

Before Trump, the term “rigged” had many connotations, depending on the context.

after she lost might have something to do with it.

We aren't electing saints. We're electing people and people are flawed by nature.

I don't live in California.

IF they have a spine and stand up to Republicans, they are elevated in my book.

The PA Democrats are pushing for Conor Lamb to primary against Fettermen. That's some choice we have here: Turncoat v. Blue Dog.

That's like choosing between AIDS and cancer as the way you want to die. I want Malcolm Kenyatta, but the power brokers in Philly don't care what we in western PA have to say about anything.

You asked:

Because that's who I would have voted for before his downfall. His policies would very much help us here, so should we vote for him? He's still on the ballot. Oh, so not even try that "this is different, you are being ridiculous," because it is the same, as per your logic.

I would vote Steyer before Porter in a heartbeat. I will vote for whichever Dem is polling the highest, and I hope it's Xavier Becerra.

What you just said about her was damning.

And no, she doesn't have executive-level experience nor teh temperament to be Governor here, esp when we are on a "war time footing" with our own Government. If she is polling the highest, I will vote for her, but she won't be polling the highest.

However, there are some videos of Porter speaking harshly to staffers. These seem to support general allegations of an abusive workplace in her office.

In my opinion, at least, she behaved poorly when she lost the California Senate Democratic primary in 2024, suggesting it was rigged.

If I lived in California, I would happily vote for Porter if she were the gubernatorial nominee, But I don't feel the same way about her now as I did before 2024.

governor?

(j/k)

She said it was, was it?

And like I said, I'd vote for her if she was the gubernatorial candidate in my state. I'm actually more troubled by her response to the 2024 senate primary.

Given a choice between a candidate who didn't complain about an election being rigged and doesn't treat her staff poorly and a candidate who did and does, I'd prefer the one who didn't and doesn't.

If she is the nominee, will you vote for her, stay home, or vote third party? Two out of the three help Republicans.

I don't live in California.

If I did, I would vote for the Democratic candidate. If that candidate is Katie Porter, she would have my vote.

But if I was a California resident, I might consider a different Democrat in the primary election.

-Consistently endorsing candidates who have openly disrespected Democratic nominees.
-Gaining a replutation for treating staff poorly.

NOT INTERESTED.

She killed her own career.

and they really do not leave a good taste in your mouth. Nor do they give the aura of "level headed leader."

Obviously she would be better than a republican. I think she would also be better than Steyer, who has zero experience. This is not my race to vote in as I'm not in California. I personally like everything I've heard about Becerra.

I don't honestly know. I had been leaning Steyer. Never liked Swalwell and Porter lost me over the past two years. So of the three likely candidates, I was floating around him.

But now Becerra's coming up, and I'm giving him a serious look. Obviously, it's going to come down to viability and ensuring a Democrat makes it to the general. We won't really know the shape of that until closer to the election. So I will probably hold on to my ballot until the week before.

If it appears that one Democrat will easily make it to the general, I would be delighted to vote for Betty Yee just as a form of "Hey, I see you. You're great."

If I have to give a firm answer at present, I am on the fence between Steyer and Becerra when it comes to my vote, but my heart wishes Betty Yee were doing better.

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2026, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Emily’s List (of which I have been a member for over 20 years, and whose founder, Ellen Malcolm, called my daughter the best intern they ever had). As they only support women, I get their preference in this race.

As for me, I just recall “Nina Turner.” As a Texan living in Germany, I really can’t claim to have a horse in this race, but if I did, for that reason alone, it would not be Katie Porter.

You just don't walk in on a Zoom call, never, ever,
unless the house is burning down.

It's the old comparison,
She's Difficult, he's Assertive.

Women are held to an impossible standard.
And remind me why Swalwell is out.

Again, you are voting for, not marrying the candidate.

I've seen her in congress on TV.
I want her to be Difficult and Assertive for me.

Vote totals weren’t altered, but Schiff spent $10 million of his campaign funds on ads elevating Garvey, who had been polling in 4th or 5th place.

The ads raised republican voters awareness that Garvey was even a candidate, increasing their turnout and producing Schiff’s desired result - facing Garvey instead of Porter in November.

the polls. It looked like a firm race of Schiff vs Harvey except in Katie Porter’s wishful thinking. Schiff correctly picked his obvious opponent. There was no “elevating” Garvey. Garvey is a well-known household name in California from his baseball days.

These kinds of manufactured smears have not worked well for Porter. California has not bought into these eye-rolling non issues. It’s very tiresome. We need to stick to real and actual issues that affect Californians.

There were articles at the time tracking the polling changes as the ad campaign rolled out.

Porter was firmly in second place until Schiff started his ad campaign.

as it should be and voters know that. Porters only attacks were on Schiff , really stupid attacks like this. Look at her final results. Something was way off with her polling. Her friends didn’t do her any favors ,

Garvey would not have been in the top two if Schiff hadn’t run the ads highlighting Garvey’s policy platform, giving him free media exposure and motivating republicans to get to the polls.

Schiff’s strategy was documented and criticized by other Democrats and progressive pundits during that campaign, as it was happening.

It’s not a stretch, it’s a fact.

& it's even seeping into threads that have nothing to with her

Not rigged, and we don't hate her, we just don't think she should be Governor here. I live here. She will not win a Senate seat or the Governor's seat. I wish Harris or Bonta had run, but I will vote for whomever is polling the highest at the election, even Porter, but it won't be Porter.

She needs to run for a non-executive state office or the House.

session from a candidate who never led in the polls and obviously made the substance of her campaign attacking a popular long-term congressman.

Nothing was “documented.” There was no proof to anything as no “pundits” are mind readers. For all we know, Schiff took pity on Porter and spared attacking her on her obvious flaws — all the things known about her, none of which Schiff chose to expend political capital on. Why on earth would Schiff lower himself to attacking Porter who already had enough baggage

It looks like most California voters agree with me. A desperate candidate making desperate conspiracies about why they are not being attacked, lol. It’s just too dumb for words, sorry.

Mahalo for explaining the whole California Senate Primary Race so explicitly well.

Best of Good Luck for getting the Best Governor for
your State.! Many of us are very interested. My daughter was born there, and we lived there for 15 years. I'll always love California!

Aloha

to see Schiff being pestered with inane nonsense. It just diminished Porter, too. She gained nothing in the eyes of voters and it looks like she’s stagnated in this governor’s race, too.

It looks like California voters are starting to pay attention to this primary. It’s interesting to see Steyer’s early monopolizing being quickly diminished as voters start weighing in. After over a dozen years of a war on billionaires, they might be wary of the sudden turnaround promoting a billionaire.! It’s just so strange. Looks like Xavier Becerra is benefitting from recent events. I think there’s a debate this Wednesday night. It will probably be posted here.

It’s always nice to hear memories of California. It’s a beautiful state. As is Hawaii!

Aloha Cha!

I miss it. We lived all up and down North County San Diego.

It's really interesting to hear about how the race for Gov is playing out. Talk about high drama..

From what I've read, I hope Xavier Becerra wins!

Aloha, Nixie~ ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜

If one dem wants to promote a republican candidate in order to sabotage the chances of another Dem, that’s perfectly fine- is that your position?

If she is polling the highest, then I will vote for her, but I expect the top two places will be Hilton and either Beccara or Steyer. I would prefer the top two be Dems. I was originally voted Swalwell, I hope it's Becerra, and Steyer is alas my #2.

imo she doesn't have the temperament to be Governor, and her saying the CA Senator election was rigged was the last straw for me.

April 22 California Governor Debate
April 28 Pomona College Debate
May 5th CNN in Los Angeles Debate

... Can we clone her?

and tepid centrists like Golden who vote with Republicans.

So, let's and say we did!

Or the other names on your list?

Well that should clear it up for California voters.

Dems need to stop trying to guess who is the “strongest path,” and instead vote for the candidate who resonates to THEM most. Pretty much every time some nominee is chosen as “most likely to win,” they are defeated. That candidate is NEVER the one with the best ideas to move their state or country forward, and the “most likely” designation is shorthand for “conservative Dem candidate who we wrongly believe is going to pick up the most (mythical) crossover votes, while we yet again throw our natural voting constituencies and actual left, who’d actually vote us in by a landslide if the were given a reason to do so, under the bus AGAIN, until they become so disaffected they tell the Democratic Party to go to hell, and just stay home.” There’s a REASON the Democratic Party has such low approval ratings - it’s this “most likely to win” dreck that ensures absolutely nobody likes the eventual candidate.

How do they plan to work with the public and California legislature to address actual on the ground issues along with recognizing potential consequences-

Homelessness and population density issues (includes transitional, temporary, and low income permenant housing; public transportation and public utility infrastructure)

Public health policy

Social services; education, and - living wage jobs...
water and environmental policy

Science and research policy to promote economic growth.

State Legal policies, including regulations, legal/judicial processes, and enforcement oversight.

State Privatization, including outsourcing of services and sales of assets that might be underutilized or not utilized.

State revenue and State investments (including Trade and foreign investment/agreement) management - policies have to be paid for, and populist "Tax the Rich and Corporations; make them pay their fair share" isn't as much of an easy button solution as it seems.

These things - and more - are issues that face California and that a Governor needs to deal with. And even good Governors will end up being hated; it's a high position, but certainly not an easy position when it's to be performed wisely - because the position requires the ability to govern - to take responsibility for carefully negotiated management, rather than just leadership.

Can any of the candidates end up being successful governors? All we can do to assess their ability is look at their history in government or management, how they have acted on their stated values and ethics.

How I like them as presented has nothing to do with their effectiveness.

seen.

"A restraining order over dumping a steaming pot of mashed potatoes on his head.." Who does that?

She never really had centrists. Progressives were the ones buttressing her prospects.

Our Revolution just endorsed Steyer. Yee, who just dropped out and is well-liked by progressives, just reiterated her belief Porter doesn't belong near the governorship. California Young Democrats endorsed Becerra.

When progressives are telling her "Eh, maybe not," it's probably time for a rethink. If your support base isn't that interested, it's not great.

The article in the OP rested part of its argument on the fact Porter was second preference to Swalwell in an old poll. Well, we have new polls now. She is so far not the beneficiary the article assumed she would be.