Schiff v Garvey will likely draw more Rethugs voters out than Schiff v Porter would have. Those extra Rethug

[Celerity]

voters may end up costing us some US House seats in close CA races.

We already are likely a NET swing minus 8 seats down (from the current US House R v D split) with the NC Rethugs spinning up a new RW gerrymandered US House map that likely takes NC from 7 R/7D tie to a likely 11 R/3D or so advantage.

Take that and then, IF we lose 1, 2, or maybe even 3 close CA US House races due to increased Rethug turnout for Garvey, we will then be a NET swing cumulative 10 to 14 seats further down (compared to the present Rethug narrow US House advantage) before the rest of the 48 others States' US House races are even decided.

[jimfields33]

1. Just have to make sure every registered democrat votes.

We have a lot more voters than they do by far in California.

[Celerity]

5. Yes, but now the major Rethug donors will toss in a massive amount of money to raise Garvey up for House coat-tail

effects.

[jimfields33]

7. Like a nat, swat them away. I know it's a possibility but hopefully with President Biden and representative

Schiff, our voters will also vote in droves swatting the repugs away.

[calguy]

10. There's more California voters statewide

But most of those voters are in the big metropolitan areas. People don't seem to realize that California is a huge agricultural state, and the voters in those districts vote heavily for Republicans. As liberal as California is made out to be, if you take out most of Los Angeles and the SF Bay Area, it would be just as red as North Carolina.

[summer_in_TX]

32. Rural voters everywhere should know about Project 2025.

Maybe we've written them off in many cases. But if they know what a Trump administration would mean for them, such a radical change, we might make significant inroads.

https://www.stopthecoup2025.org/farmers

The GOP has a plan for what the next conservative president should do — and it’s not so good for farmers .

The plan is called Project 2025, and here’s what it says:

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture should be scaled back, because “the USDA’s `client’ is the American people in general, not a subset of interests, such as farmers, meatpackers, environmental groups, etc.” (pg. 290).

• Our climate is changing. Extreme weather has been hurting farmers in the past few years. The Midwest has warmed by 1.5 degrees in the last century and floods have become more frequent to harm food production and harvests -- impacting on economic security and harming public health. Looking ahead, extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality across America’s heartland. Yet Project 2025 would radically reverse climate change policies – worsening the forecast for farmers. (pp. 293, 425, 508; US Global Change Research Program).

• The GOP wants to cut back farm subsidies: “The overall goal should be to eliminate subsidy dependence” because subsidies create “market distortions.” The federal sugar program, for example, “intentionally tries to restrict supply and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year” (pg. 294-5).

• “Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year.” Farmers can receive support from the ARC (Agriculture Risk Coverage) or PLC (Price Loss Coverage) programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication.” (pg 297).

• Eliminate the Conservation Reserve Program: “Farmers should not be paid in such a sweeping way not to farm their land” (pg. 304).

• Shrink the Farm Services Agency that administers farm subsidy programs (pg. 310).

• The next president should help all Americans. US farm bankruptcies keep climbing; small farmers are not surviving. Project 2025 targets the poor, most vulnerable, elderly and students, including minorities. It calls for cuts to SNAP, WIC, elderly and school meals, Medicaid and Medicare, and limit access to student loans. They want a work requirement to access food stamps and tougher student loan payback penalties. That’s a plan to punish, not help, struggling farmers. (pp. 298-303; 322, 327, 330, 462-468).

• Get rid of H-2A visas. “The H-2A visa, meant to allow temporary agricultural workers into the United States […] undercuts American workers in agricultural employment. […] Congress should immediately cap this program at its current levels and establish a schedule for its gradual and predictable phasedown over the subsequent 10 to 20 years.” While the GOP and Project 2025 push a harsh clampdown on immigration, this proposal threatens farmers who already struggle to hire enough seasonal farm workers (pg. 611).

THAT’S NOT ALL….

There’s a lot more in the fine print of Project 2025 that threatens rural Americans. The GOP plan claims to help farmers and ranchers with policies that focus on extreme deregulation of safety policies in food, industrial manufacturing, animal husbandry, and foreign trade, while privatizing or cutting federal programs. But it’s like a bank or credit care loan: it may sound great at first glance, but you have read the fine print. When you do, you see the risks and possible heavy penalties.

If you’re a super wealthy, giant land or business owner, maybe you won’t be as negatively impacted, but even the 1% will suffer from extreme heat, and eat food that’s less safe, with greater exposure to pathogens from less-enforced food safety protocols.

If you’re an average American farmer, or a younger family, or are a student, or you’re part of America’s growing mosaic of diversity, Project 2025 is going to radically rewrite the rules in many areas to make it a lot harder, not easier, to get by and build a secure future.

Stop the Coup 2025 is working to break the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 down so it can be used more easily to educate Americans about their planned authoritarian takeover.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Yup.

Folks didn’t seem to understand those risks, only focusing on the short term benefit to Schiff.

[tritsofme]

3. Perhaps not? If Porter was in the race, they actually would have had a realistic opportunity to defeat Schiff

who they irrationally loathe. This race will be as pointless for California Republicans as any statewide race in recent memory.

Now with Porter out of the race, we will not have to endure a Democrat v Democrat slug fest, where a massive amount of money is raised by both candidates, taking it out of circulation for those potentially competitive House seats.

[TwilightZone]

9. Yep, it opens up a huge amount of cash for other races.

Lawrence O'Donnell said he thought Schiff/Porter would have been the most expensive Senate race in history. GA 2022 was $260m.

[Celerity]

15. Massive Rethug money will now flow into Garvey, just for driving statewide coattails for those close House races, and

Schiff will still have to spend a shedload of cash to push back in an effort to minimise that possibility of increased Rethug turnout blow-back down-ballot (which will coalesce around Garvey due to Rethug hatred for Schiff now having an actual Rethug focal point to focus on, not just another Dem opponent for Schiff).

[Celerity]

12. that makes no sense

you said

If Porter was in the race, they actually would have had a realistic opportunity to defeat Schiff

If Porter had clinched 2nd, then we would have a Democratic Senator no matter what, as there would be no Rethug in the general, PLUS there would be no topline CA statewide Rethug to draw out Rethug voters.

Now we have that topline statewide Rethug (Garvey) candidate who will tap into that Rethug Schiff hatred directly and likely will ramp up Rethug turnout satewide, which could cost us a couple US House seats in close races in CA.

[tritsofme]

21. The chance of Schiff losing is almost zero. Garvey will be defeated by a massive margin similar to Trump

I believe that a competitive Porter could have actually been more of draw to Republicans in this race in the end, compared to Garvey’s inevitability dead-end campaign.

Porter is the only candidate that actually could have defeated Schiff, and if it looked like a close race, I don’t doubt that Republicans in their irrational hatred would have turned out for her.

Spending in these House races was always going to be high, but if Republican donors want to throw money in the fire pit of this unwinnable Senate race, all the better for us, it will take away resources that they could have spent on actually competitive House and Senate races that will actually determine control of the chambers.

Also a Schiff/Porter race would drain resources from these competitive House races you refer to, Schiff will have to raise much less to defeat a weak Garvey compared to Porter. The money that Schiff and Porter are not raising will be more available for these House races and other actually competitive elections.

[Celerity]

26. More Rethugs will vote for an actual Rethug versus Schiff than ever would have voted for the Demcoratic candidate

Porter running against Schiff.

Rethug big money will absolutely play into that in order to use Garvey (despite the fact he will lose the general) as a magnet to cause an increase of Rethug voters statewide in hopes of inceasing their chances in close US House races in CA.

[tritsofme]

28. Republicans wasting money on this race is a good thing.

I think it is hilarious that in their irrational hatred of Schiff, that they might divert money from actual competitive races.

As I mentioned, the money that is not wasted on a Schiff/Porter war will be available for those House races you mention, and can more than offset whatever advantage you imagine Garvey gives in these races. I don’t see Garvey as any more threatening to our prospects than any other failed Republican statewide candidate from recent cycles.

[Celerity]

33. it will not be 'wasted' IF increased Rethug statewide turnout results in us losing a couple close US House races.

Our road to clawback of the US House is already hard enough with the NC probable neagtive net 8 seat swing. Losing another 2, 4, or even 6 more NET lost swings in seats would just make it that much harder.

[tritsofme]

34. I simply don't agree with the premise.

I think the resource drain from a Schiff/Porter race would have had a much more negative impact on those House races. On balance, I believe this dynamic favors Democrats.

[Celerity]

36. I will agree to disagree, and I so hope I that my concerns are not borne out

[Polybius]

29. And California voters seem to love celebrities

Reagan and Arnold won there.

[AllyCat]

63. I don't understand that draw to celebrities.

It is bizarre to me.

[betsuni]

30. Yes, agree.

[All Mixed Up]

22. If this were a midterm election, I'd agree. But it's a presidential election, so Trump will draw 'em out.

[SocialDemocrat61]

66. Isn't just as likely a Dem vs Dem race

would depress Democratic voter turnout because having a Democratic Senator would be a sure thing. That would be bad
for down ballot races too.

[Celerity]

76. When this Senate seat was last contested, it was in 2018, and was Dem v Dem AND a midterm, yet de Leon

became the first losing US Senate candidate in US history to garner 5 million and still lose (to Feinstein, the incumbent, so it was not even an open seat).

The 2018 General:

This year it is an open seat, there is a clear Rethug winner (amongst Rethug voters) unlike 2018, and Schiff is a hate magnet for Rethugs, which Garvey and the big Rethug money will use to increase Red turnout not just for Senate battle, but for the close House seat races as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/05/us/elections/results-california-us-senate.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/results/2024/03/05/california-senate-primary/

[SocialDemocrat61]

79. OK

But there seems to be a lot of assumptions without much data to prove them.

The last time there was a Democrat vs Republican running for the Senate in CA was in 22.


In both 18 and 22 about 11 million people in CA voted in the Senate race. There wasn't a bid up swing of voters in 22 vs 18. What data is there to support that there will be one this year?

[Celerity]

87. Mueser was a nobody, Padilla was an incumbent and the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate, plus

was a two term, statewide-elected CA Secretary of State before he became a California US Senator.

[SocialDemocrat61]

94. So?

I still don’t see any data that supports your theory about the effect on down ballot races.

[Celerity]

96. I am positing possibilities based off multiple reasons that I have posted up and down this thread.

It is a future-forward prediction of events that could unfold.

As for data, the final tallies for our jungle primaries are not even in yet.

That said, I have repeatedly posted replies to multiple posters as to why and how I think it could manifest.

I made no absolute claims that my theory is etched in stone and is inevitable.

I am sticking by my OP assertion that my scenarios are well within the realm of possibility.

It is pretty clear that you disagree.

I accept that.

Done here.

[SocialDemocrat61]

97. Could unfold being

the operative term.

[Nixie]

95. "hate magnet". You keep blaming Schiff, but it's the Dem attacks

on fellow Democrats that provide the openings these Republicans seek since they are also opportunists. Porter didn't help by giving the GOP the idea that Schiff can be boxed out in November so that is what drove the turnout. We've seen this before.

Republicans win or think they can when they can catch Dems smearing other Dems. These are the proven realities, not yet more ignoring election results in favor of negativity towards our winning candidates.

[Celerity]

99. I have never blamed Schiff for the hate that MAGAts have for him.

you said

"hate magnet". You keep blaming Schiff, but it's the Dem attacks on fellow Democrats that provide the openings these Republicans seek since they are also opportunists.

MAGAts have hated him to the levels they now do ever since he was a vital, key player in the multiple House investigations, impeachments and Senate trials of the POS Trump. Their delusional hate for him started long before our CA US Senate seat became open, long before the jungle primary campaign.

Next up, you said:

Porter didn't help by giving the GOP the idea that Schiff can be boxed out in November

How would Schiff have been 'boxed out' 'in November'?

That makes no sense.

Schiff was pretty much a lock to finish in the top two in the jungle primary for ages.

Once he made the general how could he be 'boxed out' in it? There are only 2 candidates on CA general elections.

again, you said:

the idea that Schiff can be boxed out in November

If (and he is now) Schiff is one of the 2 finalists for the November general, he either wins (which he will) or he loses (which he wont).

There is no 'boxing out' then for any one at that point, it's a simple two person race, you either win or you lose.

[Nixie]

106. You must have missed when Porter said Schiff was afraid to run

against her. She said she would beat him in November. She was never ahead in any poll, but she said she would beat him. So if they hate him, of course they would turn out. Is he supposed to just shrivel up and go away because Porter said she would beat him and Republicans hate him? No. California voters decide that, and they did.

I'm glad you don't hate Schiff. I saw a post from you speculating how he would turn out and you hoped he wouldn't be like Sinema. Really? Is that type of undermining speculation really necessary? It doesn't seem necessary. There is no legitimate basis for all of this continued undermining rhetoric for a man who won an election in which he always led in the polls.

[Celerity]

107. of course i do not hate Schiff and I will gladly vote for him in the general

this is what said btw (the post you referenced)

you left out quite a bit

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218733164#post38

38. There are several potential Dems running for Senate who are open to questions as to what type of ideological camp they will end up being if they are elected.

Schiff (ex centrist to slightly conservative ex Blue Dog, ex No Labels-founded/run Problem Solvers Caucus member, who has drifted fairly substantially to the left over the past few years and hopefully stays that way and doesn't revert and become remotely like Sinema, Manchin). I so hope Schiff follows the path of Gillibrand, who was pretty conservative (more than Schiff is now) as a House Rep yet became a strong progressive in the Senate, and NOT the path of Sinema (who was also a Problem Solver in the House, and worked with them from the Senate, along with Manchin, to scupper a huge chunk of Biden's two Infrastructure Bills, plus blocked the two Voter Rights Bills, etc etc), who was a strong progressive but went further and further to right, ending up with the huge problem she has become in the Senate. I wager he will be far more of a Gillibrand than a Sinema. I voted for Porter, but I have pretty much accepted that Schiff will likely win both our jungle primary and the general (if it is Garvey the Rethug as his opponent that will be a sure win).

Elissa Slotkin (my biggest concern) She is a current No Labels Problem Solvers Caucus member, has been anti Pelosi for years, and is, IMHO, the most likely to become the next Sinema. I was so disappointed that all the better (IMHO) candidates (in alphabetical order: Jocelyn Benson, Pete Buttigieg, Garlin Gilchrist, Andy Levin, Mallory McMorrow, Dana Nessel, and Gretchen Whitmer) did not run. Whitmer and Buttigieg may well run for POTUS, so that is likely why they declined, and Benson will likely run for Governor. Given that, I would have vastly preferred Nessel and/or McMorrow over Slotkin, but also Gilchrist and/or Levin as well.

Tammy Murphy (ex Republican and NJ Dem machine candidate) who I so hope loses to Andy Kim in the primary. Kim will be a rock-solid Dem, Murphy has far too much wild card potential for my taste.

David Trone (MD, another Problem Solvers House Rep), who I hope is defeated by Angela Alsobrooks in the primary. I would love to see a fellow black progressive female (Alsobrooks) as the new Senator from Maryland, but alas, it does not look good for Alsobrooks atm in all the primary polls, so I hope Trone does not remotely go even a little bit Sinema/Manchin style on us in the Senate if/when (hopefully far more 'when' than 'if') he defeats Hogan in the general. Fuck Hogan for changing his mind and entering the race. He was the ONLY Rethug who has a remote chance to win that seat.

That all said, obviously ALL four Dems listed above as concerns of mine would be infinitely better than ANY Rethug.

end of that post

[Nixie]

109. Yes, this is the post I saw. Thanks. You hope he doesn't turn

out like Sinema.

[Karma13612]

101. Last night on MSNBC

Lawrence O’Donnell explained that having just the one Democrat against the one Republican, it means the Democrats don’t have to spend double the money on two Democratic campaigns.

One candidate- Schiff, (who drew many more votes than Porter or Lee) is a lot better also because he won’t be attacking a fellow Democrat.

[Celerity]

103. Schiff will still have to spend a tonne, and now the big Rethug money can flow into Garvey in the hope

that they can increase Rethug turnout statewide and aid in perhaps poaching a couple close swing US House races via that increased Rethug voter turnout satewide and especially in those close districts. Garvey will likely go campain with the US House Rethug candidates in thsoe swing House districts. There are around 8 or so.

[LauraInLA]

4. I assume Lee will be replaced in the House by another Democrat. I'm afraid Porter's seat

will return to Republican control .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. The cumulative Democratic vote in CA 47 jungle primary is hovering around 52%

[FBaggins]

90. Which is about what she received on her own two years ago

The problem is that the Republican in the race (Baugh) is the same one that Porter beat by only three percent despite outspending him $29M-$3M. This time around he's the better-known candidate and has far more cash (Min was down to $200k in the last report).

Garvey up-ticket could absolutely make a difference this year.

[calguy]

19. I always thought Porter was getting way ahead of herself by running for the Senate

She hasn't even completed two terms in the House, and she's throwing a promising career away to run against a much more experienced legislator like Adam Schiff.
Say what you will about his tactics to promote Garvey with his ads, but he cleaned her clock.

[Sibelius Fan]

42. Senate seats become available to D candidates in CA every 20-30 years.

This was Porter’s shot, and she took it.

[calguy]

105. That's one way to look at it

I'm still puzzled as to why she thought she could win.

[Bucky]

70. Oh hogwash.

She had all the bona fides she needed to run. It was a worthy fight and telling an accomplished legislator that she needs to know her place is not a helpful message

[calguy]

104. I wasn't saying she needed to know her place

I'm a big admirer of hers, but she got ahead of herself when she entered that race. Adam Schiff is light years ahead of her as far as legislative experience is concerned. She had little chance to win, yet she pretty much ended her political career with an unwise decision to enter a race she couldn't win.
Hopefully we'll be able to keep her seat Democratic, but I have serious doubts about that. She could have been a star down the road, but it won't happen now.

[MotownPgh]

77. Porter

Yes! She was doing a great job. Was so disappointed that she decided to run. Ego I'm afraid. Happens to the best of them. But could be damaging to lose any house seats.

[Cha]

100. Thank You.. LO'D thought it was a Good

strategy.. and I'm just so happy Schiff WON!!

Nancy Pelosi And Barbara Boxer Endorsed Adam Schiff.. That tells me a lot!

Cal

[RockRaven]

6. It's a presidential election year.

The CA fuckwits will be performing fealty to their Dear Leader on election day with mindless downballot voting no matter who is in the Senate race.

[Sympthsical]

8. Not in California

There is zero percent chance of Trump getting electoral votes.

But once you give people a reason to come out - and they hate Schiff - they will come out.

We'll see if this was worth it.

[RockRaven]

13. Performative political fealty does not depend on electoral outcomes.

All over the world, every day/week, people go to houses of worship and perform the appropriate/expected rituals regardless of prayer-result-outcomes.

It is the performance of the in-group action which is its own reward -- by affirming in-group-ness.

[All Mixed Up]

23. There's zero chance Garvey wins California.

[Celerity]

37. that is not the concern, as I have explained in multiple posts, including my OP

[Zeitghost]

98. Why would the fail to come out for Trump, their leader

Because he has zero chance of picking up California's Electoral College votes.

But run to the polls to support a largely unknown Senate candidate who has zero chance of winning (or to vote against a person who is all but guaranteed a win)

It seems like faulty logic to me.


Trump and local races will drive Republican turnout in CA, not Schiff/Garvey.

[Sympthsical]

11. Forget 3D chess

This strategy was bad checkers.

Guess we'll see what we see in November.

[WarGamer]

14. good analysis, Celerity...

Hope we don't lose ANY of those seats, though.

[Celerity]

18. My fear is Garvey will go around to all those close districts and whip up a two-for-one Rethug poutrage storm:

1. He is now a real, actual Rethug focal point to draw out the Schiff haters

2. He will also draw out more Rethugs in those close US House races, and the big Rethug money knows that and will dump in tens of millions to help that happen. Schiff will still have to spend like crazy to prevent this (and obviously to hammer Garvey to make sure no remotely close race for Schiff himself).

[JohnSJ]

16. We are talking California for gosh sakes. 47% are registered Democrats, 24% are registered republicans, with 23%

No party preference who lean left.

In fact Schiff has won twice as many votes as Porter in the primary, and it would have been even more if we didn’t have the stupid jungle primaries.

If you are speculating because Porter lost in the California primary her supporters won’t come out in the general election against trump, and House and Senate seats, nonesense.

People aren’t stupid in California, and know in this election in 2024, that not only the presidency is up, but so are the House and Senate, and how critical all the races are.

This isn’t a 2016 redux

Where Rethugs are throwing a lot of their money here is to try and recall Newsom again, and because of our stupid low threshold of 11% to qualify for the ballot.

[Celerity]

24. I never said or even had any serious concern for this:

If you are speculating because Porter lost in the California primary her supporters won’t come out in the general election against trump, and House and Senate seats, nonesense.

I am talking about increased Rethug turnout hurting us in close US House races in CA (due to Garvey being a focal point in the general, an actual Rethug statewide general election vessel for Rethug hatred for Schill to come out and vote for)
.

[JohnSJ]

25. I think that Democrats and progressives in the state are just as motivated to come out and

vote Democratic up and down the ballot, plus there will be propositions that they will want to participate in.

[Celerity]

31. I absolutely think that a Schiff v Garvey race will increase Rethug turnout statewide more than a Schiff v Porter race

would have. I have a real fear that the Rethugs will use that to focus in like lasers on close US House CA races, use Garvey (and trade on Rethug Schiff hatred now having a real R to vote for to drive more Rethugs to the polls) to win those close US House races.

I also said this before our CA jungle primary results came in tonight, this is not ex post facto posturing.

[Sibelius Fan]

44. Nope. Rs will now waste $ on Garvey, which will hurt funding for down-ticket Rs.

Ds will not spend as much on Schiff than they would have in a Schiff v Porter contest, opening up funds for down-ticket Ds. CA is the most-expensive place to run in the country.

BTW - I voted for Porter. She was my rep until she got redistricted.

[Celerity]

56. I voted for Porter as well, partly to keep Garvey out. And any dollar the Rethugs spend on Garvey

very likely raises Rethug turnout statewide, which helps the US House Rethugs, plus, Garvey will go and campaign with them, especially in swingy CA US House districts.

In my heart of hearts, I wanted to vote for Laphonza Butler, as Barbara Lee waited too long to run (at most she would last 2 terms, due to age) and I really want to see more of my fellow black female Dems in the Senate, but alas, a vote for either Butler or Lee was not a realistic choice in terms of winning, so I defaulted to Porter (in vain, it turns out).

I want Angela Alsobrooks to win the Senate seat in MD, but unfortunately, atm, it looks like the No Labels Problem Solver David Trone will win the Dem primary there.

At least Lisa Blunt Rochester is very likely to win the Delaware US Senate seat and will become only the 3rd black female US Senator in American history (after Carol Moseley Braun and of course, Kamala Harris).

[Bucky]

69. That's my take too

I just think people are underestimating how divisive a Porter vs Schiff race in November would be to the party. All those dollars that would've poured into which Democrat we elect to Congress can go to actual swing states or to House races instead. The jungle primary system is really toxic. Us pro-Porter people should count our blessings instead of resenting Schiff's smarter strategy.

[Mordred]

20. Padilla beat Repub Meuser 61-39 in 2022

Is Garvey really going to perform better than Meuser did 2 years ago. 2022 was close to the pandemic and the economy was worse.
Garvey has no money, doesn't seem to like to campaign and is 75 in a state where we just had a Senator die in office.

Obviously Trump will endorse Garvey but it's hard to imagine he is a candidate that will energize the state party. It's unlikely much outside money will flow to Garvey as there are better investments to make to flip the Senate (like in Maryland, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.)

[DemocraticPatriot]

41. He's really 75 now? Shades of 'The Last Hurrah'

even though he never had a first 'hurrah' in politics...

He brought one thing to this contest: his name,
which is still remembered by baseball fans who are old enough
to have such a long memory....

Otherwise? A sacrificial lamb...

You are right, he certainly is not going to 'energize' the Trump party
beyond that level which Trump will energize them to vote. He is an asterisk in this election.

I think Congressman Schiff can afford to wage a very quiet campaign and coast to victory.

[kelly1mm]

47. Maybe not such a good argument when our Presidential candidate is 81, just saying ....NT

[DemocraticPatriot]

55. I was not denigrating his age--- only marveling over

the passage of time....

Last time I saw him on television (playing baseball)
he was half or less of what my age is, now...

[Zeitghost]

27. It's a Presidential Election Cycle

The Senate race isn't going to be the factor driving turnout.

[OAITW r.2.0]

35. Garvey's toast. Is he alive? perform a breath test on his animated corpse, to be sure.

[kelly1mm]

46. Isn't Steve Garvey like 6 years younger than President Biden? Maybe not so good an argument? nt

[stopdiggin]

38. the basic thesis here is that Garvey is going to have something like presidential coattails

I think that's kind of - imaginative.
Committed voters are going to turn out (on both sides of the aisle) regardless. And stay at home types - particularly in a presidential cycle - are not going to be motivate by a Senate seat.

If bad things happen in CA this election cycle - it won't be due to a 'Garvey' effect.

[DemocraticPatriot]

39. I don't see Garvey as having such 'gravitas' that it will draw any more

Republicans to the polls.... they have to KNOW that he is going to lose, right?

Further, from what I have observed of him (which is precisely NOTHING, of course),
it would seem he is only a lukewarm magat who doesn't care to promote the MAGAt king very much---
maybe he wishes to attempt to "thread the needle" between being seen as a loyal Republican
and being seen as a 'reasonable' Republican with the General election voters...
but before this campaign I have never heard of him as being a 'political person' in any instance whatsoever.

He is an aging ex-baseball player who had a great name in the 1970's,
which is the only reason he was a viable candidate for the GOP in this race.

The Republicans who turn out in the General Election will do so because of TRUMP!!!

The fact that Schiff has been a major figure of hatred by the MAGAts because of his opposition to Trump,
is not going to draw any more GOP voters--- all of those who hate him for it,
will already be voting anyway, if Trump is on the ballot.

Certainly, Schiff's nomination for the Senate is not going to draw additional
'moderate Republicans' to the polls (if such animals still exist, lol).

To the extent that Katy Porter might have run a campaign further to the left than Schiff,
I think THAT might have drawn more Republicans to vote in November who might have stayed home,
than the campaign that Schiff will run. He can frankly "coast" to victory in California.

Just my opinion, respectfully submitted.

[rpannier]

43. Withdrawing

Checked the primary result. Kim Young cleared the 50% by almost 10%
Her hand-rubbing over Garvey helping her campaign is unimportant
She will (sadly) likely get re-elected to the House

[DemocraticPatriot]

45. But the OP was arguing that Schiff's nomination would draw more

Republicans to vote than Katie Porter would, which I don't believe is true....

I was responding to that point.


Garvey drawing more GOP voters to come out to support his mashed potato campaign?


Pfffft.

[rpannier]

48. I withdrew it

Kim won the primary with almost 60% of the vote
I really cannot stand her
I think Garvey will get some non-Trump republikkans to vote.
But, in terms of tipping the scales in any race (at least in the House) probably isn't going to matter

[brush]

52. Fact is Garvey doesn't have a great name. He used to beat his wife...

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2024, 05:16 AM - Edit history (1)

and had 2 outside kids during his marriage. It was no secret back then. Baseball fans remember...he promoted this goody-goody, clean cut image but was doing dirty, disgusting shit all the while.

[DemocraticPatriot]

53. All I recall is his baseball....

I hadn't heard about the rest of this, previously...

This "baseball fan" does NOT "remember" what you say

but I will take your word for it.


Wife-beating, bastard children--- probably a PLUS among the MAGAts....

[brush]

54. Google it. It's all true. You must be too young as a baseball fan to know of Garvey's scuzz ball rep.

[DemocraticPatriot]

57. If I was "too young", I would not even RECOGNIZE his name from baseball.

We didn't have "social media" back then, and the national press didn't cover such things so much at the time.

I said that I believed you. I don't need to "Gooble it" or even Google it.
Even if it WAS "widely known at the time" as you say,
I only read one local newspaper at the time,
and don't recall reading anything about all that...


I am 61 years old, and the most attention I ever paid to baseball was during the 1970's and '80s...

[brush]

58. It's ok if you didn't "gooble it." Rep. Schiff may not even use the dirt...

in his campaign as California is so deep blue.

But here's a link in case you care to look.

https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/la-times-today/2024/02/07/steve-garvey-children

[DemocraticPatriot]

59. I was not questioning your FACTS---

Only objecting to your blanket statement that
"ALL baseball fans remember!"


Well, this one had no memory of any of that, as I said---

SO, "negative ads" which would educate those of us
who don't remember, would certainly be entirely in order, here!


(In a recent poll, 75% of Americans polled were unaware that Trump had declared that he wanted to be a dictator 'on day one', and after being informed of that, a significant number changed their poll vote...)

Do you live in California, or Los Angeles?
Among the older residents there, Garvey's sins may have been much more 'well known' at the time---
Not so much over the rest of the country, but we are learning now...

Anyway, I was never a 'fan' of Steve Garvey---
I only remember that he had talent in the game of baseball, way back when...

[brush]

61. I lived in the Bay Area back then but heard about Garvey's carefully crafted...

clean cut image as his teammates didn't like him much even and they talked. And the dirt found it's way up to the Bay Area as I was a Giants fan and we played the Dodgers.

[rpannier]

40. withdrawn post

[DemocraticPatriot]

50. "Stupid" to run ads attacking a Republican, versus

attacking a fellow Democrat? I think not.

Such ads only "prop up" the Republican, as you say---
because the Republicans prefer the most extreme candidates,
and the faults of such candidates are perceived favorably by Republicans...

"Garvey is too extreme for California" ?? The GQP likes that.... ok.

We can't control their particular 'logic' or lack thereof---
but there is no moral imperative for Democratic candidates to refrain from running attacks
(general election types of attacks) against Republicans in a Democratic primary campaign.


From the results I have seen so far, Porter was far behind anyway. The impending contest between Schiff and Garvey avoids wasting a lot of campaign money in a GE contest of a Democrat against a Democrat.

[brush]

49. I dunno. Garvey is a total scuzz ball. Beat his wife and had 2 outside kids while married.

Baseball fans remember. It was no secret back then. Could cost him votes with negative ads.

[RandySF]

51. No

[betsuni]

60. Another No.

[Mike Nelson]

62. I did not think of that...

... my thought would be an ugly "in-house" Schiff vs Porter race would cost us in turning off Democrats in a Presidential election year. I'm not sure Garvey has coattails. Now, I think the ugly "in-house" effect may be his... he will turn off CA Republicans with his inability to take a pro- or anti Trump side.

[Oopsie Daisy]

64. There there, now.

[SocialDemocrat61]

65. Is there data to support this theory?

Please post a link.

[Happy Hoosier]

73. Nope. It's a narrative.

I think it is AT LEAST as likely that a contentious GE between two democrats would suppress D turnout. I also don't have any data to support that. Because apparently that's how that works.

[Celerity]

89. I replied in re a Dem v Dem general in post 76

You said

I think it is AT LEAST as likely that a contentious GE between two democrats would suppress D turnout.

see:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218748545#post76

[mathematic]

67. Is this net of the competitive seat Porter abandoned to run a futile campaign for senate?

The people of California want Adam Schiff to be their next senator.

Porter was nowhere close to 2nd place. Attributing her abysmal performance to anything Schiff did is laughable.

[pinkstarburst]

74. Agree

The reality is, California is a big state with a LOT of people living in it. There is a WEALTH of very smart, very talented minds there who would make amazing senators. This is the state that produced Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom (who could very well be the next president), Adam Schiff, Katie Porter. Sometimes it simply sucks if you are a brilliant mind but living in the wrong state, wrong time for the pieces to fall in your favor. Look at Pete Buttigieg and Stacey Abrams as examples.

I wish Katie Porter had stayed where she was in the House, but I can't fault her for taking a chance at a once in a lifetime senate seat opening, nor can I fault Californians for wanting Schiff. They're both EXCELLENT choices and it's a shame that only one gets the seat and IMHO even more of a shame that there aren't rules in place in every state requiring that when a senate seat comes open that an election must be held within 180 days. I personally think Alex Padilla's seat should have been filled by a vote as well, not by Gavin Newsom getting to choose a senator. This is no knock against Padilla or Newsom... simply that this is too important for the choice to be left up to only one person's will.

[Bucky]

68. I disagree. I think having a high profile state-wide race will be a boon for Dem fundraising & turnout.

Plus California will avoid having a D-on-D election falsely dividing the Democrats into factions.

[Nixie]

71. Blaming Schiff isn't intellectually honest. Katie Porter's own district is being lost to a Repub because two Democrats

were fighting with ridiculous attacks about how clean their money is. It's just a really stupid idea to lose districts because two Democrats are fighting, especially over some morality/superiority claims. That was Katie's only message against Schiff, and he didn't engage in it, much to his benefit.

So your very simple explanation "increased Rethug turnout for Garvey" is just an attempt to blame Schiff for winning an election. It actually shows that Katie and her fans were hoping to sucker punch California voters with this type of strategy, but voters came out in force for Schiff instead. Katie seems very bitter about Californians' making their preferences heard.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/02/min-weiss-ad-porter-seat-00139366

"The intraparty contest between two Democrats vying for Rep. Katie Porter’s toss-up Orange County seat is rapidly emerging as one of the most vicious primary battles in California.

The latest salvo: an ad from state Sen. Dave Min accusing his rival, Joanna Weiss, of powering her campaign with money earned through the legal defense of sex offenders. The attack comes a week after Weiss released an ad slamming Min for his DUI arrest last year."

[Happy Hoosier]

72. Contrarywise.... a mudslinging GE between two democrats might suppress Democratic turnout

I don't buy you "back of the envelop" analysis.

I've seen that Porter is willing to attack Schiff's integrity at every opportunity, and I think that would go in to overdrive in the Fall, and could well turn off voters sick of that kind of BS.

Porter only has herself to blame for this IMO. A lot of voters are turned off by her mudslinging, IMO.

[betsuni]

78. +1

[Cha]

102. Exactly.. TY! I'm so glad Adam Schiff took care of that.

[TakeItEasy]

75. Schiff's tactics worked

As predicted, and expected.

[Happy Hoosier]

80. What's your evidence for that?

Porter was WAY out 2nd place. The idea that Schiff boosted Garvey enough to keep Porter out of the second spot is not supportable, IMO. Anecdotal assertions don't hold up here, IMO. To Pull in to second place, something like 60% of Garvey's voters would have to have not turned out. That's laughable, IMO.

[Nixie]

83. Yes, and it's sadly a laughable accusation. Does she think

that Republicans had to be told by Schiff who is on the ballot? It's such a dumb accusation that it makes you question why someone supposedly intelligent would involve herself in such a cynical ploy.

[Nixie]

82. It's more that Porter's strategies failed.

Schiff was No 1 in the polls from Day One. Nothing she accused him of stuck. She's getting kinda skunked when you look at her dismal numbers. Porter and Lee combined weren't beating Schiff.

[Celerity]

86. And that is not my point, as I have explained up and down this OP thread. What 'worked' for Schiff could

possibly come with blowback for us Dems in close US House races in the general, as CA Rethugs will likely turn out more with a Rethug to vote for versus 2 Dems, especially a well known Rethug like Garvey.

If people are of a mindset that an actual well known Rethug (Garvey) in the statewide Senate general will somehow LOWER Rethug statewide general election turnout (versus Rethug statewide turnout for a Dem on Dem Senate contest), well that is faulty logic IMHO.

Rethugs will likely turn out in higher numbers to vote for an actual Rethug opponent of their object of hate, ie Schiff. They would much prefer to vote for Garvey v Schiff than another Dem opponent of Schiff, especially one who is further to the left than Schiff.

Also, here are 2 fairly recent races that show how a well known Rethug (Carly Fiorina, and the celebrity jock Garvey is even more well known than her) in the general had a closer general race than the last Dem v Dem general for that Class 3 US Senate CA seat.

[W_HAMILTON]

108. Yes, he spent his time attacking Republicans rather than fellow Democrats...

...and Democrats, in turn, supported his campaign and voted for him.

[Happy Hoosier]

81. Garvey MORE THAN DOUBLED Porter's vote.

The idea that that is down to Schiff boosting him is ludicrous IMO. Porter just didn't have the broad appeal in CA she thought she had, It's that simple. Schiff was vastly preferred by the state's Democratic voters.

[Nixie]

84. Exactly! She's getting skunked actually. Not competitive

at all.

[pinkstarburst]

85. Agreed and it's sad that Porter

couldn't handle that gracefully without turning on the democratic frontrunner who will hopefully be the state's next senator. I'm sure it must have been deeply embarrassing when Garvey got into the race and she started losing to a celebrity with zero qualifications, but it wouldn't be the first time this happened in CA politics and that wasn't Schiff's fault, nor was it Schiff's fault he was the preferred candidate. Her behavior in this race has lowered my opinion of her, honestly.

[Celerity]

91. I did not mention Schiff's 'boosting' in my OP. I was adressing perceptions about the actual outcome, possible

effects on close US House races in CA in terms of a Schiff v Garvey general as opposed to a Schiff v Porter general.

I hope those possible negative effects for us do NOT occur, of course.

Porter clearly was an inferior candidate compared to Schiff when the actual votes were cast. I most definitely am not disputing that.

In fact, I have said for some time that I thought Schiff would win both the primary and the general. I posted in some detail on that in other threads.

[Happy Hoosier]

92. Fair enough. Good day! NT

[Celerity]

93. cheers

[lees1975]

88. I don't think conventional wisdom with gerrymandering and redrawing districts will work for the GOP like it once did.

They're losing voters at a pretty rapid pace, and with Trump at the top of the ticket, it will draw out a lot of Democrats and independents who won't support him. New York and California Democrats learned their lesson in 2022.

After watching Super Tuesday results, I am a lot more confident in a Democratic sweep than I was before. We got a lot of good news yesterday.