I mean policy wise, Steyer is clearly to her left. Porters did get Pelosied when she went for Senate previously, but her performance in this election cycle has been her own. Porter also didn’t make in-roads with the rest of the squad and, well, I think that also has cost her.
Most importantly, at this point she’s sub 8% and is acting as a spoler to allow a Republican onto the ballot in November. She needs to take the L, drop out, and endorse Steyer.
If I could wave a wand, I’d make it Porter vs Steyer for the governership. Because yes, eat the billionaire, but I’m gonna vote on policy every time. And they are objectively better than the rest in this regard.
As an aside, I also wish Harris would have run. Not because I want Harris but because I want her not-involved-whatsoever in the next presidential election.
Sure. And someone is going to be the next Governor of California.
If you would prefer to eat Steyer, who do you suggest people then instead vote for?
Porter is — or was — the only candidate who is not completely deplorable.
I mean policy wise, Steyer is clearly to her left. Porters did get Pelosied when she went for Senate previously, but her performance in this election cycle has been her own. Porter also didn’t make in-roads with the rest of the squad and, well, I think that also has cost her.
Most importantly, at this point she’s sub 8% and is acting as a spoler to allow a Republican onto the ballot in November. She needs to take the L, drop out, and endorse Steyer.
If I could wave a wand, I’d make it Porter vs Steyer for the governership. Because yes, eat the billionaire, but I’m gonna vote on policy every time. And they are objectively better than the rest in this regard.
As an aside, I also wish Harris would have run. Not because I want Harris but because I want her not-involved-whatsoever in the next presidential election.