Republicans, I am begging you. Run a sane, moderate Republican in California and you will win, handily. Of course you won’t, it’s no longer in your nature, but I’m telling you, there is gold in them thar hills if you can get your shit together.
It’s incredible the extent to which the best politicians of both parties invariably come from “purple” states - i.e., those with competitive elections where both parties stand a credible chance of winning. California has essentially been electively non-competitive since the early 90’s (Schwarzenegger was an anomaly) and these clowns are the consequence.
There is an old joke that goes, "Heaven is a government by Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans; Hell is a government by Southern Republicans and Northern Democrats." The joke needs to be updated for the West Coast politicians who have found new levels of crazy.
Registered normcore Democrat here whose shoulders slump every time I see a candidate describe themselves as "progressive," but I have high hopes for Steve Hilton. I knew him from David Cameron's Conservative government anyway — by the standards of today, a very normal center-right government that did things like bring in same-sex marriage — but he was on "Freakonomics" not so long ago and sounded, dare I say it, sensible? Being a Brit, he seems like a long shot, but then Arnie hardly had a Midwestern accent, did he?
I'd like Rick Caruso too but we need him for LA, and without political experience I worry he'd just be deadlocked with Sacramento. But, these are good choices to have!
What is truly impressive about this interview is that it manages to look bad on paper and then you watch it and it's WORSE. The written analysis undersells how miserable this was for everyone involved!
Yup. To get the context before reading I watched the clip they showed on Fox - FOX! - and thought she was embarrassing. Then I watched the clips here and thought: no wait, she's just being embarrassing tactically to cover for being vile.
The facial expression when she leaned forward and asked "How would I need them in order to win, ma'am?" is priceless. Solid gold. Just run that clip non-stop in your campaign ads and you, be you a bucket of lard in a sock with a "D" badge pinned on, will beat her.
The most mind-boggling thing is that she’d have done fine by just answering the question. It’s not hard! “Donald Trump is a dangerous, out of control dictator. [cite politically resonant examples] If you voted for him, and you agree that this is not okay and that he must be stopped, I promise I’ll do everything in my power as governor to protect your rights as a Californian and an American. If you think it’s okay that he [repeat examples], then I admit that I’m not the candidate for you, but I’m going to be honest with you [reporter’s name], I think most Californians, even the ones who voted for Trump, want a president who respects democracy and doesn’t think he’s above the law”
Tbh a simple "I want to improve the lives of all Californians. We all want [several common bipartisan issues] and I'll do [several reasonable solutions and policies] to do that" would've sufficed.
It is a pretty softball question. "I intend to be a governor for all Californians, babble babble vague platitudes babble babble".
Instead she nuked herself from orbit. 40% of the electorate can just go DIAF as far as Katie is concerned, and the other 60% have nobody else to vote for, because who else can there possibly be? This is Hillary 2016 levels of entitlement, without half the effort Hillary's campaign put in.
Don't forget that this is the same Katie Porter who alleged that the Senate primary she lost to Adam Schiff was "rigged." The apparent basis for this claim was that he raised and spent more money than she did. After all the pain that Trump put the country through with his election rigging claims, that she could claim "rigging" against a fellow Democrat (or anyone for that matter) should have disqualified her for further office then and there.
I can only hope that Jeff's prediction that her political career is over is true, but knowing my fellow California Democrats, I have my doubts.
To be fair, the rigging in question was that Adam Schiff helped juice the Republican's campaign in the primary so he wouldn't have to have the run off against another Democrat. I dislike Adam Schiff for this reason, but it doesn't cause me to like Katie Porter instead.
What Schiff did was underhanded bare knuckle politics. It’s not election rigging. It’s also risky, because it can backfire, but it’s hardly unprecedented. What someone should do is air Schiff’s dirty laundry. Bring attention to what he did. Schiff seems shameless, but maybe voters next primary season may change their mind.
Absent clear evidence, claims of election rigging or stolen elections should be disqualifying. Unfortunately, other than through voters, there is no mechanism to disqualify anyone. Parties really can’t stop someone from trying to run. Trump took it to eleven, but Stacey Abrams got a lot of tv gigs and fawning press claiming she won an election she clearly lost. We’ve been hearing rumblings of this in every election of my lifetime. Hopefully Jan 6 was rock bottom and this trend will be like 70s fashion - something we cringe at and try not to think about too much.
What did I just watch? That was insane, this woman has run in an election for something? And won? According to Wikipedia she used to be a member of Congress, did she ever have an interview for that? Has there been a followup from her "camp"? Maybe the flu? Or a twin?
Oh calm it down there, Rush Limbaugh, Jr., good lord. I hope you’re a very fine physical specimen if you’re making remarks like that about a pretty ordinary-looking woman (and I mean that in a neutral, non-insulting sense).
If she didn't behave like an absolute brainless shrew, her appearance would come off differently. As it is, her facial expressions just make the bad haircut and color, the poorly fitting dress exposing her oversized arms and ample girth worse. If she had a more engaging personality she would appear more attractive. Ugly personality makes an "ordinary-looking woman" appear ugly.
God, how awesome would it be to actually have an identical twin as a politician? It'd be an automatic get-out-jail-free card. Just get them to go on camera and say "Yeah, I was the one who took all that coke in the nightclub and then punched that nun"
Twin brothers served as the president and PM of Poland and founded one of the major parties there. One died in 2010 in a plane crash in Russia, but the other is still a dominant figure.
There's a person in this world that convinced swing state voters to vote for two dead men, in the same election. You can't make this shit up, but it really happened.
Unfortunately, Porter hasn't been gifted with "god's gift to politicians" in the rhetoric department.
(In case you're wondering, it's the "Malarkey" guy -- how to take one word, that nobody uses anymore, and rebrand "Joe Biden the Plagiarist" into "Joe Biden the Irish Gentleman").
Holy fuck. I've been in conference rooms for the last few days and this is the first I'm seeing it!
One small correction, Jeff. After the Biden/Trump debate, my aunt said, "Well, that was bad, but it's not like I want to behead him and feed him to the hogs like I did with Nixon."
Wow! Let's think about a different angle. Would Porter have acted the same way if the interviewer had been a middle-aged male, not an attractive young female? I doubt it.
I'm shocked the journalist did not touch on Porter not fitting the traditional standards of what is considered attractive in a woman (young, thin, blonde). How could she possibly miss this easy trope when lamenting about double standards vis-a-vis men and women in politics?
After Palin, one shouldn't say that blonde is a "traditional standard" (given that Palin dopples had quite the pornography career.)
The journalist was probably deliberately steering away from it. To say anything about it would involve discussing a woman's age or weight, both of which are quite rude.
One thing I'm surprised you didn't go deeper into here is her awful body language (except the eyes, which you mentioned). Especially the *hands*. She's putting a hand over the interviewer's leg. She's making the double-handed "stop" gesture in the interviewer's face. She's doing the freaking bird hands - nobody ever coached her to never do the bird hands, as a candidate in 2025? And I know they're seated a bit close together, but personal space is still a thing, perhaps all the more important in tight quarters. No one would want to be sitting across from this person, and that's more basic than the "have a beer with" test.
Anyway, imagine being a "leader" and being unable to adjust to a change in circumstances - and not an *un*likely one, just maybe not the course you considered #1 most likely. I bet she thinks she's being a total girlboss for trying to cow a reporter into sticking to a script, though.
I was laughing reading this, and expected the videos to be less horrible than the wickedly funny descriptions…and yet…it was more awful by a ton. She encapsulates everything wrong with the Democratic Party.
Probably. I haven't watched her in a while. I know during her Presidential campaign, it took the campaign hours (like about twelve or so) to teach her how to "point and smile" at someone in the crowd. Dedicated worker, decent thinker -- not a very "good politician" for working the crowd.
(And I talked to a liberal photographer once, who did the Nixon beat. Said Nixon was good at kissing babies and being genuine with crowds (in a homespun Nixon sort of way)).
Hillary Clinton wasn't nearly as grating to women as Harris (who is a failed psychopath, with all the lack of empathy and none of the charisma -- you hear it in her fakeo laugh) -- all the career women recognize the "mean girl" aspect of Harris (the person whose only idea in life is pulling other women down).
Wow, is all I can say. The journalist comes off polished and professional; Katie Porter comes off like a petulant child. This person is terrible at politics.
Hell, I'd vote for the interviewer hands down if she were running.
This is interesting because it's a an illustration of what is fundamentally wrong with progressive politics nowadays: They are angered and offended by the idea of trying to appeal to people who don't already agree with them about everything.
Yes, you can win California without Trump voters; that would justify being dismissive of that line of questioning. But she wasn't dismissive, she was hostile and defensive.
More to the point, there are so many things she could've said. "It doesn't matter who they voted for, all Californians are affected by high housing prices, energy concerns, and wildfires, my plans for those are [insert plans here]." How hard is it to just answer the question?
It is not difficult to think of more sensible and politically savvy things she could have said. My point is that the REASON she didn't "just answer the question" is that she resented the question and did not want to validate it.
Indeed. Or, for that matter: "I'm sure a lot of people who voted for Trump now feel betrayed since he arbitrarily cut their jobs and harmed the economy with his mishandling of tariffs, and I want to give them the option to vote for someone who actually works to make things better for the American people." There are so, so many options that are better than affecting outrage that a former Trump voter might vote for you.
Kinda insane she wasn't getting buried already from the litany (not a single incident!) of DV accusations her ex-husband made against her in their divorce.
Damn, I don’t think I had heard of that! Always been kinda fascinated by the phenomenon of female-on-male DV, but yeah… in her case I guess I can see it now that I’ve seen this interview.
The courts sided with her and gave her full custody of their kids while the ex-husband left the state. I think the several reports of her berating her staff should be noted as well. If she can't manage a Congressional staff then how can she manage the largest subnational economy in the world? https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/08/katie-porter-tears-into-staffer-new-video-00598942
Way back in the 1990s, my high school sociology textbook made the point that female-on-male DV is about as common as male-on-female, but leads to less "severe injuries."
Also there's the relationships where both people hit, and they both punch back.
Eh, divorces can be nasty and accusations get flung around like snuff at a wake. Though having seen how Ms. Porter conducts herself in this interview, such allegations will now seem more credible - she does seem like someone who would start hurling the crockery if she thinks you looked at her the wrong way.
why is being a "fighter" a good thing in politics? Antagonism is definitionally.. well... against compromise and politics, especially in a 49-51 or hell even a 60-40 country.. Kind of important..
When people think they're under attack from one group or another, they like someone who will stand tough and fight back and not shrink away from the conflict. Republicana felt they wee under attack for the Obama presidency and thought the likes of John Boehner and Mitt Romney were way too congenial and mushy about it, so when Trump came on the scene they flocked to him. Now it's Dems who feel under siege and want someone who stands up firmly against Trump, which is why Gavin Newsom's profile has risen lately as he's been very openly antagonizing him on Twitter, and Chuck Schumer's approval is in the toilet with his own voters as he's been seen as way too slow and limited in what he's doing to fight back.
It doesn't always have to be strictly a left-right fight though. Bernie Sanders was seen as a fighter more against private companies and the perceived moderate establishment of the Democratic Party than against the right, which his supporters liked.
All mentioned are far too interested in advocacy. Specifically Bernie. Who is probably the biggest cult of personality in politics. He sort of reminds me of Marx. Coasting I do wonder if he would be able to mar a living if he wasn’t constantly voted into office. Term limits might have seen the man go homeless.
I think they flocked to Trump because college professors were telling people what Halloween costumes to wear and he was refreshing. Als both of these parties become these clubs with a line you stand in for your turn to run for president.
Also I wouldn’t say republicans flocked to Trump. Had exported been awake and not asleep at the wheel in 2016 and nominated someone whose candidacy wasn’t seen as sexually transmitted we would have been done with Trump in one fell swoop
But “it was her turn”. Especially after she waited so patiently for Obama after he had surely leapfrogged her in ‘08 when it was really supposed to be “her turn”.
The original sin of our current moment is Hillary Clinton being exalted as somehow “above average” when everyone in the country was like “I’m not seeing any clothes in this emperor”.
The attraction to Bernie was in no small part because he was such a bit-part character that he didn't get to go to Epstein's island. He wasn't worth blackmailing, you see.
He was authentic.
Bernie knew how to sit down and compromise. He also knew who people really hate -- the SOBs who steal nuclear power plants for pennies on the dollar.
Republicans -- standard, old school Republicans -- kind of winced and voted for Trump, because Clinton/Harris/Biden weren't their kind of tea. And they always vote, so they had to vote for Someone. It was the Union Democrats, the Military Men, and folks of that ilk that swung it for Trump. To them, he's a 1990's democrat from New York. Aka a moderate, with a hell of a mouth (not all of them like this fact. In fact, most don't).
Agree. I also think Trump is uniquely horrible and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. The hard part is that his voters are not all horrible, thus the problem with messaging.
Eh. Most voters are horrible. I’m a bit nihilistic on the process. Social media has put politicians and voters too in touch with each other and the feedback loop of egotism is going critical. It’s not just Trump. All of them have this cult of personality wannabe intellectual thing going on.
Like guys. Your servants. Public servants. We should be treating politicians like the help. It should be a shitty job where you have to shut up your whole term. Do your business. And go home when you’re done.
These people get upheld as if they’re important or special. They’re not. As this video proves. And as Trump proves. They’re just people with outsized egos.
Voters have ruined politicians by turning them into totems.
I have to brag that I thought Katie Porter and her whiteboard were full of shit from the get go, and that this meltdown doesn’t surprise me at all. When she was still in the House she tried to get cute with committee assignments and wound up pissing off all manner of colleagues (“go along to get along” is not the noblest of behaviors, but it is kind of the job description for a successful politician).
To your list of political train wrecks, I’d add Ted Kennedy’s 1979 interview with Roger Mudd, when he couldn’t give a coherent answer to the question of why he wanted to be President.
If you’re interested in political trainwreck interviews and prepared to cross borders can I suggest John Hewsons 1992 ACA interview where he tries to explain how the GST (sales tax basically) would apply to a cake
Now I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that this one interview cost him the unlosable election, but it sure as hell didn’t help!!
JFC what is happening here. I don't know what to say about the fifth video. I had a very low opinion of Porter to begin with, but I'm struggling to find the words to describe what happened here.
I keep wanting to say "The reporter should be charged with murder" because great (metaphorical) violence happened here, but of course the reporter was in no way responsible. It's like Porter went to a kids birthday party, the reporter was cutting the cake, and Porter grabbed her arm and plunged the knife into herself repeatedly.
I feel the reporter is going to need therapy to process what happened here and I may need a little too. I'm sure Porter thinks that this was totally fine and that she is doing great.
The first part sounded less to me like daring the 60% of Harris voters to vote Republican, and more like basically saying "ha! appeal to Trump voters? They're only 40%, what can they do? This state is ours and they can't do anything about it". Which is maybe even kind of true but it's still very off-putting and hubristic to say/imply.
Dems trouble started around the time every Dem politician and Dem leaning talking head and columnist started talking like political consultants explaining how demographics would lead to permanent majorities, the white voters heard all those people constantly talking about how demographic trends would deliver Dems wins with Hispanic and black voters (which wasn’t even good political consultants talk, even those demographic trends relied on Dems getting a decent chunk of the WWC vote) and heard, quite reasonably ‘they’re saying they don’t need us’ or worse ‘they’re saying they don’t want us’
White men, specifically. White women are easier to "guilt" into voting Democrat, even if they're the bottom of the metaphorical totem pole and no longer get to speak at meetings. "Believe all women" held up for about ten minutes, and then women wanted to say "We don't want these trans people in our bathrooms." and they got called "transphobic" and worse.
Harvey Weinstein was a big democratic donor. And Cuomo got sunk by folks that "believed all women." So did Al Franken.
"Believe all women" becomes a card in the Democratic deck, for when the Big Powers decide a politician (or a producer) needs to go. Lord knows Hollywood is a cesspit of pedophiles and creeps and "have sex with me if you want to get a part" guys.
Republicans, I am begging you. Run a sane, moderate Republican in California and you will win, handily. Of course you won’t, it’s no longer in your nature, but I’m telling you, there is gold in them thar hills if you can get your shit together.
I would settle for a sane, moderate Democrat.....
Oh I’ve all but written off this possibility, but yes definitely that would be amazing.
[edit] thinking about this further, a sane Republican would force more sane Democrats into the field, and vice versa. So yeah, bring em both on.
It’s incredible the extent to which the best politicians of both parties invariably come from “purple” states - i.e., those with competitive elections where both parties stand a credible chance of winning. California has essentially been electively non-competitive since the early 90’s (Schwarzenegger was an anomaly) and these clowns are the consequence.
There is an old joke that goes, "Heaven is a government by Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans; Hell is a government by Southern Republicans and Northern Democrats." The joke needs to be updated for the West Coast politicians who have found new levels of crazy.
Well bitchiness anyway! 😊
Crazy is the correct word if you see how the likes of Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are run.
Pick one!
Paging Kevin Faulconer
Any Republican "sane" by California standards would be a suspicious Republican indeed.
Registered normcore Democrat here whose shoulders slump every time I see a candidate describe themselves as "progressive," but I have high hopes for Steve Hilton. I knew him from David Cameron's Conservative government anyway — by the standards of today, a very normal center-right government that did things like bring in same-sex marriage — but he was on "Freakonomics" not so long ago and sounded, dare I say it, sensible? Being a Brit, he seems like a long shot, but then Arnie hardly had a Midwestern accent, did he?
I'd like Rick Caruso too but we need him for LA, and without political experience I worry he'd just be deadlocked with Sacramento. But, these are good choices to have!
Arnold might've run 20 years too early, honestly.
That’s why Arnold Schwarzenegger had to have a recall election to win as a Republican.
Who is we and you? I am not a Republican.
But I am not on board with the sentiment. We need to win Republican votes, not demonize them. Now more than ever.
What is truly impressive about this interview is that it manages to look bad on paper and then you watch it and it's WORSE. The written analysis undersells how miserable this was for everyone involved!
Yup. To get the context before reading I watched the clip they showed on Fox - FOX! - and thought she was embarrassing. Then I watched the clips here and thought: no wait, she's just being embarrassing tactically to cover for being vile.
not a good move clearly 😆
The facial expression when she leaned forward and asked "How would I need them in order to win, ma'am?" is priceless. Solid gold. Just run that clip non-stop in your campaign ads and you, be you a bucket of lard in a sock with a "D" badge pinned on, will beat her.
Everyone I’ve sent it to I’ve made that point ‘you may have read about this, but believe me, you have to watch it to see how crazy it is’
The most mind-boggling thing is that she’d have done fine by just answering the question. It’s not hard! “Donald Trump is a dangerous, out of control dictator. [cite politically resonant examples] If you voted for him, and you agree that this is not okay and that he must be stopped, I promise I’ll do everything in my power as governor to protect your rights as a Californian and an American. If you think it’s okay that he [repeat examples], then I admit that I’m not the candidate for you, but I’m going to be honest with you [reporter’s name], I think most Californians, even the ones who voted for Trump, want a president who respects democracy and doesn’t think he’s above the law”
Tbh a simple "I want to improve the lives of all Californians. We all want [several common bipartisan issues] and I'll do [several reasonable solutions and policies] to do that" would've sufficed.
I actually like that she did not lie about that.
It is a pretty softball question. "I intend to be a governor for all Californians, babble babble vague platitudes babble babble".
Instead she nuked herself from orbit. 40% of the electorate can just go DIAF as far as Katie is concerned, and the other 60% have nobody else to vote for, because who else can there possibly be? This is Hillary 2016 levels of entitlement, without half the effort Hillary's campaign put in.
Don't forget that this is the same Katie Porter who alleged that the Senate primary she lost to Adam Schiff was "rigged." The apparent basis for this claim was that he raised and spent more money than she did. After all the pain that Trump put the country through with his election rigging claims, that she could claim "rigging" against a fellow Democrat (or anyone for that matter) should have disqualified her for further office then and there.
I can only hope that Jeff's prediction that her political career is over is true, but knowing my fellow California Democrats, I have my doubts.
To be fair, the rigging in question was that Adam Schiff helped juice the Republican's campaign in the primary so he wouldn't have to have the run off against another Democrat. I dislike Adam Schiff for this reason, but it doesn't cause me to like Katie Porter instead.
What Schiff did was underhanded bare knuckle politics. It’s not election rigging. It’s also risky, because it can backfire, but it’s hardly unprecedented. What someone should do is air Schiff’s dirty laundry. Bring attention to what he did. Schiff seems shameless, but maybe voters next primary season may change their mind.
Absent clear evidence, claims of election rigging or stolen elections should be disqualifying. Unfortunately, other than through voters, there is no mechanism to disqualify anyone. Parties really can’t stop someone from trying to run. Trump took it to eleven, but Stacey Abrams got a lot of tv gigs and fawning press claiming she won an election she clearly lost. We’ve been hearing rumblings of this in every election of my lifetime. Hopefully Jan 6 was rock bottom and this trend will be like 70s fashion - something we cringe at and try not to think about too much.
Hey, if the Pied Piper strategy worked for Hillary - 🤣
It seems to be risky, but sometimes works:
https://theweek.com/speed-reads/1015258/the-pied-piper-strategy
Yep, she went full Bernie 2016 after losing that primary, the left of the party needs to reckon with the toxic culture of entitlement they’ve let grow
Well she not doing very well in the polls anymore!😌
What did I just watch? That was insane, this woman has run in an election for something? And won? According to Wikipedia she used to be a member of Congress, did she ever have an interview for that? Has there been a followup from her "camp"? Maybe the flu? Or a twin?
Apparently, in addition to Cadillac health care and free hair cuts, Congress also has a free, all you can eat 24 hour buffet.....
Oh calm it down there, Rush Limbaugh, Jr., good lord. I hope you’re a very fine physical specimen if you’re making remarks like that about a pretty ordinary-looking woman (and I mean that in a neutral, non-insulting sense).
If she didn't behave like an absolute brainless shrew, her appearance would come off differently. As it is, her facial expressions just make the bad haircut and color, the poorly fitting dress exposing her oversized arms and ample girth worse. If she had a more engaging personality she would appear more attractive. Ugly personality makes an "ordinary-looking woman" appear ugly.
Needs to drop 30 lbs or so to qualify as ordinary.
Calling somebody "ordinary-looking" is an absolute brutality.
And a full liquor bar to boot!😆
lol! Well played.
God, how awesome would it be to actually have an identical twin as a politician? It'd be an automatic get-out-jail-free card. Just get them to go on camera and say "Yeah, I was the one who took all that coke in the nightclub and then punched that nun"
What if your twin is also a politician?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaros%C5%82aw_Kaczy%C5%84ski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Kaczy%C5%84ski
Twin brothers served as the president and PM of Poland and founded one of the major parties there. One died in 2010 in a plane crash in Russia, but the other is still a dominant figure.
There's a person in this world that convinced swing state voters to vote for two dead men, in the same election. You can't make this shit up, but it really happened.
Unfortunately, Porter hasn't been gifted with "god's gift to politicians" in the rhetoric department.
(In case you're wondering, it's the "Malarkey" guy -- how to take one word, that nobody uses anymore, and rebrand "Joe Biden the Plagiarist" into "Joe Biden the Irish Gentleman").
yes we need to update wikipedia.. stat!
Holy fuck. I've been in conference rooms for the last few days and this is the first I'm seeing it!
One small correction, Jeff. After the Biden/Trump debate, my aunt said, "Well, that was bad, but it's not like I want to behead him and feed him to the hogs like I did with Nixon."
Oh man, the Sacramento Bee’s most laughable opinion writer just came out with this gem
“Porter’s real sin, then, perhaps, was not just that she was caught being rude, but that she was rude while being a woman.
And that’s something the American public is yet unwilling to forgive.”
I’m sure her editor gave her the assignment of writing an opinion piece so bad that it would get at least 1 million shares
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article312434184.html
Women will only be equal once they realize they too can be called out for being just as much of an asshat as a man.
Wow! Let's think about a different angle. Would Porter have acted the same way if the interviewer had been a middle-aged male, not an attractive young female? I doubt it.
I'm shocked the journalist did not touch on Porter not fitting the traditional standards of what is considered attractive in a woman (young, thin, blonde). How could she possibly miss this easy trope when lamenting about double standards vis-a-vis men and women in politics?
After Palin, one shouldn't say that blonde is a "traditional standard" (given that Palin dopples had quite the pornography career.)
The journalist was probably deliberately steering away from it. To say anything about it would involve discussing a woman's age or weight, both of which are quite rude.
One thing I'm surprised you didn't go deeper into here is her awful body language (except the eyes, which you mentioned). Especially the *hands*. She's putting a hand over the interviewer's leg. She's making the double-handed "stop" gesture in the interviewer's face. She's doing the freaking bird hands - nobody ever coached her to never do the bird hands, as a candidate in 2025? And I know they're seated a bit close together, but personal space is still a thing, perhaps all the more important in tight quarters. No one would want to be sitting across from this person, and that's more basic than the "have a beer with" test.
Anyway, imagine being a "leader" and being unable to adjust to a change in circumstances - and not an *un*likely one, just maybe not the course you considered #1 most likely. I bet she thinks she's being a total girlboss for trying to cow a reporter into sticking to a script, though.
I was laughing reading this, and expected the videos to be less horrible than the wickedly funny descriptions…and yet…it was more awful by a ton. She encapsulates everything wrong with the Democratic Party.
Hillary Clinton is hilarious if you have a beer with her. Wicked sense of humor. Stiff suit on stage, of course, but real in a bar.
Does she still do that fake forced laugh?
Tell joke. Peer at the audience to gauge reaction.
No laughter = move on to next topic
Occasional chuckle from the audience?
“RIIIIIGHT!!! AM I RIIIIIGHT!!! Deplorables!!!!
(Fake Forced laugh)
HA! HA! HA!
Riiiiiight!!!?
Probably. I haven't watched her in a while. I know during her Presidential campaign, it took the campaign hours (like about twelve or so) to teach her how to "point and smile" at someone in the crowd. Dedicated worker, decent thinker -- not a very "good politician" for working the crowd.
(And I talked to a liberal photographer once, who did the Nixon beat. Said Nixon was good at kissing babies and being genuine with crowds (in a homespun Nixon sort of way)).
Hillary Clinton wasn't nearly as grating to women as Harris (who is a failed psychopath, with all the lack of empathy and none of the charisma -- you hear it in her fakeo laugh) -- all the career women recognize the "mean girl" aspect of Harris (the person whose only idea in life is pulling other women down).
Wow, is all I can say. The journalist comes off polished and professional; Katie Porter comes off like a petulant child. This person is terrible at politics.
Hell, I'd vote for the interviewer hands down if she were running.
Good point. The reporter’s politeness provides a stark contrast.
This is interesting because it's a an illustration of what is fundamentally wrong with progressive politics nowadays: They are angered and offended by the idea of trying to appeal to people who don't already agree with them about everything.
Yes, you can win California without Trump voters; that would justify being dismissive of that line of questioning. But she wasn't dismissive, she was hostile and defensive.
More to the point, there are so many things she could've said. "It doesn't matter who they voted for, all Californians are affected by high housing prices, energy concerns, and wildfires, my plans for those are [insert plans here]." How hard is it to just answer the question?
Yes. I'm gonna be your governor, and here's what I'm gonna do to help out Central Valley.
It is not difficult to think of more sensible and politically savvy things she could have said. My point is that the REASON she didn't "just answer the question" is that she resented the question and did not want to validate it.
Indeed. Or, for that matter: "I'm sure a lot of people who voted for Trump now feel betrayed since he arbitrarily cut their jobs and harmed the economy with his mishandling of tariffs, and I want to give them the option to vote for someone who actually works to make things better for the American people." There are so, so many options that are better than affecting outrage that a former Trump voter might vote for you.
Kinda insane she wasn't getting buried already from the litany (not a single incident!) of DV accusations her ex-husband made against her in their divorce.
Damn, I don’t think I had heard of that! Always been kinda fascinated by the phenomenon of female-on-male DV, but yeah… in her case I guess I can see it now that I’ve seen this interview.
The courts sided with her and gave her full custody of their kids while the ex-husband left the state. I think the several reports of her berating her staff should be noted as well. If she can't manage a Congressional staff then how can she manage the largest subnational economy in the world? https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/08/katie-porter-tears-into-staffer-new-video-00598942
glad we got an early peak!☹️
Way back in the 1990s, my high school sociology textbook made the point that female-on-male DV is about as common as male-on-female, but leads to less "severe injuries."
Also there's the relationships where both people hit, and they both punch back.
Eh, divorces can be nasty and accusations get flung around like snuff at a wake. Though having seen how Ms. Porter conducts herself in this interview, such allegations will now seem more credible - she does seem like someone who would start hurling the crockery if she thinks you looked at her the wrong way.
May she hit the sauce before the interview to "prep" for it! That chick had that weird bar fight energy to the interview.. any DUIs Katie🍾??
She’s got the heft to pull it off, for sure.
It was more like mutual DV from what I read. Both were ordered to undergo anger management classes.
Too bad. I liked her when she came on the scene. She was a fighter. Same way I liked Michael Avenatti. Ohhhh—
why is being a "fighter" a good thing in politics? Antagonism is definitionally.. well... against compromise and politics, especially in a 49-51 or hell even a 60-40 country.. Kind of important..
When people think they're under attack from one group or another, they like someone who will stand tough and fight back and not shrink away from the conflict. Republicana felt they wee under attack for the Obama presidency and thought the likes of John Boehner and Mitt Romney were way too congenial and mushy about it, so when Trump came on the scene they flocked to him. Now it's Dems who feel under siege and want someone who stands up firmly against Trump, which is why Gavin Newsom's profile has risen lately as he's been very openly antagonizing him on Twitter, and Chuck Schumer's approval is in the toilet with his own voters as he's been seen as way too slow and limited in what he's doing to fight back.
It doesn't always have to be strictly a left-right fight though. Bernie Sanders was seen as a fighter more against private companies and the perceived moderate establishment of the Democratic Party than against the right, which his supporters liked.
All mentioned are far too interested in advocacy. Specifically Bernie. Who is probably the biggest cult of personality in politics. He sort of reminds me of Marx. Coasting I do wonder if he would be able to mar a living if he wasn’t constantly voted into office. Term limits might have seen the man go homeless.
I think they flocked to Trump because college professors were telling people what Halloween costumes to wear and he was refreshing. Als both of these parties become these clubs with a line you stand in for your turn to run for president.
Also I wouldn’t say republicans flocked to Trump. Had exported been awake and not asleep at the wheel in 2016 and nominated someone whose candidacy wasn’t seen as sexually transmitted we would have been done with Trump in one fell swoop
But “it was her turn”. Especially after she waited so patiently for Obama after he had surely leapfrogged her in ‘08 when it was really supposed to be “her turn”.
The original sin of our current moment is Hillary Clinton being exalted as somehow “above average” when everyone in the country was like “I’m not seeing any clothes in this emperor”.
The attraction to Bernie was in no small part because he was such a bit-part character that he didn't get to go to Epstein's island. He wasn't worth blackmailing, you see.
He was authentic.
Bernie knew how to sit down and compromise. He also knew who people really hate -- the SOBs who steal nuclear power plants for pennies on the dollar.
Republicans -- standard, old school Republicans -- kind of winced and voted for Trump, because Clinton/Harris/Biden weren't their kind of tea. And they always vote, so they had to vote for Someone. It was the Union Democrats, the Military Men, and folks of that ilk that swung it for Trump. To them, he's a 1990's democrat from New York. Aka a moderate, with a hell of a mouth (not all of them like this fact. In fact, most don't).
The attraction to Bernie is he doesn’t say anything challenging. Sure he’s authentic.
The cupboard are bare.
But she’s a girl and you can’t be mean to her! Plus her hubby cheated on her so we owed her this.
Agree. I also think Trump is uniquely horrible and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. The hard part is that his voters are not all horrible, thus the problem with messaging.
Eh. Most voters are horrible. I’m a bit nihilistic on the process. Social media has put politicians and voters too in touch with each other and the feedback loop of egotism is going critical. It’s not just Trump. All of them have this cult of personality wannabe intellectual thing going on.
Like guys. Your servants. Public servants. We should be treating politicians like the help. It should be a shitty job where you have to shut up your whole term. Do your business. And go home when you’re done.
These people get upheld as if they’re important or special. They’re not. As this video proves. And as Trump proves. They’re just people with outsized egos.
Voters have ruined politicians by turning them into totems.
Are you from Texas? Texas sends their legislature home, it's not a full time job.
I have to brag that I thought Katie Porter and her whiteboard were full of shit from the get go, and that this meltdown doesn’t surprise me at all. When she was still in the House she tried to get cute with committee assignments and wound up pissing off all manner of colleagues (“go along to get along” is not the noblest of behaviors, but it is kind of the job description for a successful politician).
To your list of political train wrecks, I’d add Ted Kennedy’s 1979 interview with Roger Mudd, when he couldn’t give a coherent answer to the question of why he wanted to be President.
remember her reading that stupid book with a smirk on her face during some congress session? it was titled “how to not give a fuck” or something
If you’re interested in political trainwreck interviews and prepared to cross borders can I suggest John Hewsons 1992 ACA interview where he tries to explain how the GST (sales tax basically) would apply to a cake
Now I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that this one interview cost him the unlosable election, but it sure as hell didn’t help!!
https://youtu.be/WndWM71-jSQ?si=nF1kJsqkQts-zooY
Mr. Maurer—Thank you for this. I can’t tell you what a pleasure it is to read something by someone who actually knows how to write.
JFC what is happening here. I don't know what to say about the fifth video. I had a very low opinion of Porter to begin with, but I'm struggling to find the words to describe what happened here.
I keep wanting to say "The reporter should be charged with murder" because great (metaphorical) violence happened here, but of course the reporter was in no way responsible. It's like Porter went to a kids birthday party, the reporter was cutting the cake, and Porter grabbed her arm and plunged the knife into herself repeatedly.
I feel the reporter is going to need therapy to process what happened here and I may need a little too. I'm sure Porter thinks that this was totally fine and that she is doing great.
The first part sounded less to me like daring the 60% of Harris voters to vote Republican, and more like basically saying "ha! appeal to Trump voters? They're only 40%, what can they do? This state is ours and they can't do anything about it". Which is maybe even kind of true but it's still very off-putting and hubristic to say/imply.
Dems trouble started around the time every Dem politician and Dem leaning talking head and columnist started talking like political consultants explaining how demographics would lead to permanent majorities, the white voters heard all those people constantly talking about how demographic trends would deliver Dems wins with Hispanic and black voters (which wasn’t even good political consultants talk, even those demographic trends relied on Dems getting a decent chunk of the WWC vote) and heard, quite reasonably ‘they’re saying they don’t need us’ or worse ‘they’re saying they don’t want us’
White men, specifically. White women are easier to "guilt" into voting Democrat, even if they're the bottom of the metaphorical totem pole and no longer get to speak at meetings. "Believe all women" held up for about ten minutes, and then women wanted to say "We don't want these trans people in our bathrooms." and they got called "transphobic" and worse.
“Believe all women” never applied to those accusing Democrats.
Remember that it was Hillary who ran the Bimbo Eruption Squad, which was the diametric opposite of this point…
Harvey Weinstein was a big democratic donor. And Cuomo got sunk by folks that "believed all women." So did Al Franken.
"Believe all women" becomes a card in the Democratic deck, for when the Big Powers decide a politician (or a producer) needs to go. Lord knows Hollywood is a cesspit of pedophiles and creeps and "have sex with me if you want to get a part" guys.