Opinion: We had high hopes for this Senate race. Now, ‘rigged’ is being thrown around
Think back to how the race for U.S. senator for California started: In January 2023, Democratic Reps. Katie Porter (Irvine) and Adam Schiff (Burbank) announced their candidacies for the seat being vacated by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The next month, Rep. Barbara Lee (Oakland) gets in the race, rounding out a field of Democratic candidates that ran the ideological gamut of the party. In letters to the editor, readers welcomed a race featuring such high-profile legislators and looked forward to a friendly, substantive contest.
We know how that turned out. Schiff and his allies focused their attacks on Steve Garvey, a politically shrewd effort to elevate the Republican candidate’s profile. Porter, who came in third behind Schiff and Garvey and therefore failed to make the runoff, used the Trumpian term “rig” in a post-election day tweet, drawing backlash from members of her own party.
After election day, our letter writers are focused on the ugly politics of the Senate race more than the candidates’ ideas. Now, it’s on to Garvey versus Schiff.
————
To the editor: I voted for Schiff and believe that he is the best candidate for the Senate. But I cannot get the bad taste out of my mouth over the tactics he used to ensure that he would face Garvey and not Porter in the general election in November.
I always saw Schiff as a very honorable man, and now I am rattled. As columnist George Skelton wrote, Schiff’s targeting of Garvey as a way to raise the Republican’s profile was a cold and calculated political move that was not necessary. Schiff had been ahead in all the polls from the start, and at worst he would’ve faced Porter in November.
Schiff needs to fire his campaign manager as a signal to us that he regrets using this regrettable and unacceptable tactic and that he will not pull such shenanigans again.
Carol Spector, Ventura
..
To the editor: I’m absolutely stunned that Skelton considers Schiff’s strategy to prop up Garvey a blemish on his reputation.
Come on. The whole idea of running is winning. Did Schiff attack his Democratic rivals? Did he smear them? Did he call them names?
No. Rather, what he did was extremely clever: He went after Garvey, giving him more name recognition because the Republican would be easier to defeat in November.
How is that dirty politics?
For me, Schiff’s tactic reaffirmed that he’s very intelligent and knows how to get things done. Isn’t that what we want in a senator?
Mike Moersen, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: So, let me understand the objections to Schiff’s campaign strategy — if he had attacked Porter rather than Garvey, that would have somehow decreased Garvey’s votes and increased Porter’s?
Isn’t it more likely that with three strong Democrats in the race, the Democratic vote was always going to be split? And Garvey, the only Republican with name recognition, would get most of the much smaller Republican vote but still wind up in at least second place?
Why shouldn’t Schiff go after his likely general election opponent from the start?
Richard Webber, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: Columnist Mark Z. Barabak criticizes Porter for calling an election influenced by billionaires and dark money “rigged.”
But a system where outside parties can come in and spend unlimited amounts — and we see this all the time — is indeed a rigged system.
The problem of money in politics is much worse than what MAGA Republicans complain about when they say that an election is rigged.
Harlan Levinson, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Porter could have dramatically furthered her reputation and career had she not used a loaded term such as “rigged.”
Rather than reflect and further the ideals of the Democratic Party, she sounds as petulant and spoiled as a certain former U.S. president.
Tsk, Rep. Porter. You could have salvaged yourself had you displayed a modicum of grace when you lost.
Toby Horn, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I find Barabak’s argument incredibly disheartening. He seems to be making the case that the system worked just as it should.
Billionaires were able to get rid of someone challenging their power by spending millions of dollars on advertising. What could be more undemocratic than that?
I will miss Porter’s voice in Congress. There are too few politicians willing to challenge the power of money in our system.
John La Grange, Solana Beach
..
To the editor: Porter’s bitterness after she lost is so sad.
It was not that long ago that I attended a fundraiser sponsored by Schiff for Porter that raised meaningful funds for her House campaign. Because of Schiff, I contributed to Porter’s campaign, and she proved to be a very effective member of Congress.
Schiff’s ads did not target Porter; they attacked a Republican opponent, something for which she is now expressing bitterness.
Instead, she should be supporting Schiff.
Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: Shame on Porter. As a politician, she should know the drill. She was outfoxed, maybe, but not cheated or defeated in a “rigged” election.
If Porter is so naive as to think she can use words that impugn our election, especially in the current environment, she is not yet seasoned enough to be trusted with a Senate seat.
I was so sorry to lose Porter in the House that I was ready to volunteer my services and support her in whatever she decided to do. Now, not so much.
Grow up. California voters got it just right.
Sharon Fane, Corona
