You’re asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don’t think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he’s easier to defeat.
This isn’t like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she’d be the candidate?
Because they’re running for a job where they should have the public interests first.
Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he’s competing to get the job, he can’t work in the public interest unless he’s elected.
Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.
I’m not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That’s what happened. Should he not run because you don’t think his policies are best for the public? Isn’t that what voting is for?
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat. This isn’t about him putting forward a platform, this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
Do you actually have evidence that Schiff propped up his republican rival?
Edit - looked up these claims. The claim is that he propped up a republican by running attack ads against him. That’s an absurd basis to demonize Schiff for. Should he have attacked Porter instead? Dem voters definitely would not appreciate in fighting right now, when we have literal nazis to rally against.
This just sounds like more baiting to trick Progressives into grandstanding against the Dem candidate.
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat.
So he spent money to win an election. That’s pretty normal.
This isn’t about him putting forward a platform…
Agreed. Most campaigning isn’t about simply stating a platform.
this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat…
Sabotage? That’s an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.
…and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - …
From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.
…do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he’s acted as any reasonable person would.
You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.
Funny that this info only comes out immediately after Schiff successfully crushed people that would actually represent us in the primaries.
I’m so sick of corporate dem malfeasance. Absolute demons.
You’re asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don’t think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he’s easier to defeat.
This isn’t like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she’d be the candidate?
Because they’re running for a job where they should have the public interests first.
Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.
Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he’s competing to get the job, he can’t work in the public interest unless he’s elected.
I’m not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That’s what happened. Should he not run because you don’t think his policies are best for the public? Isn’t that what voting is for?
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat. This isn’t about him putting forward a platform, this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
Do you actually have evidence that Schiff propped up his republican rival?
Edit - looked up these claims. The claim is that he propped up a republican by running attack ads against him. That’s an absurd basis to demonize Schiff for. Should he have attacked Porter instead? Dem voters definitely would not appreciate in fighting right now, when we have literal nazis to rally against.
This just sounds like more baiting to trick Progressives into grandstanding against the Dem candidate.
Yup, it’s pretty well known that Schiff used part of his ad spend to promote Garvey’s name recognition.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-06/california-senate-primary-schiff-help-garvey-column
Sorry, see my edit above. Looked it up myself
So he spent money to win an election. That’s pretty normal.
Agreed. Most campaigning isn’t about simply stating a platform.
Sabotage? That’s an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.
From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.
I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he’s acted as any reasonable person would.
You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.
Shouldn’t even really call it a job, it’s not, it’s public service. To serve the betterment of the people.