this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
91 points (94.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3325 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The first step for the candidates running in next year’s California Senate race is to quietly try to spook newly appointed Sen. Laphonza Butler into not running at all.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does any of that identity politics really matter in California? I'm not well versed in the Californian Republican party but is there a Republican who could beat any of the Democrats you mentioned? This could be as simple as newsom knows her and likes her or knows them and doesn't like them. I'm not sure. Something is odd about this appointment but my gut says it isn't purely identity politics

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The initial reason Newsom chose Butler is that she wasn't running for the seat.

See, when Harris became the VP, Newsom appointed a white mane to replace her. This pissed off a lot of people who are really interested in identify politics.

So Newsom made a promise to appoint a black woman if he had the opportunity. (Which seemed likely)

So the obvious candidate would have been Lee. A black woman who is part of the Progressive Caucus.

There are two problems that came up. First is that Nancy Peloci. Wanted to give the seat to Adam Shift.

This is an issue that can mostly be ignored, but she put the weight of the party finances behind his campaign.

The second issue is that Lee was running for the seat, but trailing in the polls.

Put those together and you have a situation where if Newsom had appointed Lee, he would have been accused of putting his thumb on the scales of the election. So he appointed Butler, likely under the impression that she would serve out the end of the term and step aside.

That she is not, is kind of scummy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Well summarized.

Not to mention she helped Newsom bail out PG&E, advised Uber when California was trying to force gig companies to treat their employees fairly, and she worksled for the lobbying entity, Emily's List - an organization meant to help women in races, but gave Biden heaps of money.

She's none of the things important to progressive agendas. She's a sham appointed by a shit bag.

I am tired of thinking the "left" in this country will do right by us. I realize we're all in this alone.