I'd posit that it's a commonsense issue at this point. The Dem field is too crowded with a ridiculous number of unknowns, frankly. Looking at polling shows Steyer and Porter the two top polling Dems now that Swalwell has dropped out, and personally, I think Porter did herself some major damage with her on camera surliness and conduct unbecoming in the video that came out on her. Because of the way their voting system works in CA, Dems are fearful that the race could end up with no Dem on the ballot, so I'd guess endorsements are going to be somewhat based on 'best bets'. Under the current scourge at the national level, Dems best chances are to take as many races as they can and it's horribly unsettling to think that an R could govern the state of CA under trump still at the helm especially. I'd suggest that perfect is always the enemy of good, this coming election more so than ever and in part, the steadfast "no billionaires' stand is analogous to the pro Gaza stand that kept too many Dems from voting for Harris - look where that got us. No thanks to a repeat of that outcome. Also, I'd add that the anti-billionaire sentiment maybe needs more nuance as there are definitely decent ones out there, in particular, JB Pritzker who has been an extremely effective Governor in IL and I've seen, heard, and read nothing but very positive assessments of his decency, effectiveness, and 'groundedness' as a human. Automatically rejecting a potentially very good candidate for having too much money is as shortsighted as rejecting one over not having enough money or being the 'wrong' color, gender, ethnicity, etc.
You’re framing this as a “commonsense, best bets” strategy, but that’s exactly where the problem is. Democrats keep saying they stand for principles, then immediately abandon them the second it becomes politically inconvenient. You can’t build trust with voters if your core message is basically “we don’t actually mean what we say when it matters.”
The issue isn’t that the field is crowded or that candidates like Katie Porter or Tom Steyer have flaws. Every candidate does. The issue is that party leadership consistently tries to pre-select “acceptable” candidates instead of letting voters decide. That’s not strategy.
This “we have to win at all costs” argument gets used every cycle, and every cycle it leads to the same outcome: watered-down positions, compromised messaging, and candidates who don’t actually inspire turnout.
You mentioned fear of Republicans winning under Donald Trump, but fear-based politics is exactly why Democrats keep underperforming relative to expectations. People don’t show up for fear long-term, they show up for conviction.
On the billionaire point, it’s not about whether someone like J. B. Pritzker is personally “good” or “effective.” It’s about consistency. If you say money in politics is corrupting, but then make exceptions when it’s politically convenient, that’s hypocrisy. Voters notice when rules only apply selectively.
And that’s the broader issue here: Democrats keep asking voters to compromise, to be pragmatic, to accept “good enough,” while not holding themselves to the same standard of consistency. You can’t criticize corruption, big money, or lack of representation on one hand, then turn around and justify it on the other because it helps your side win.
At some point, you either stand on principles or you don’t. Right now, the party is trying to do both, and it’s not working.
I think conflating ‘money in politics’ with candidates who have a lot of money is an error as they are two completely different things. In terms of ‘the party leadership’ trying to pre-select acceptable candidates, I think that’s actually part of their job description and what seems to bother voters most as of late is status quo,moderate candidates that should have aged out already. I’m not sure who would consider Bernie a member of party leadership and I thought it was his endorsement that triggered your disagreement. I don’t know what to say to the idea that Dems keep underperforming when for months now in race after race their over performance has been stunning in almost every case. I’m guessing I’m likely much older than you are and possibly that informs much of my attitude, though I’m also eminently just practical; I think ideals, conviction and principles should always be the standard but again, if Dems are not successful in wresting away control from those currently holding it, it won’t matter one iota if all our candidates met the purity test requirement, the bigger picture is the survival of country and whatever remnants of sanity still remain. Parsing principles won’t mean squat if Dems remain out of power for the foreseeable future and opposition to the Trump agenda needs to be united; I’d argue that we’ve lost some elections that we should have unquestionably won because too many folks decided the candidate on the ballot didn’t check enough boxes for them and withheld their vote and here we are. How much worse does the situation need to get before deciding that boycotting a candidate on ‘principle’ may not be the best strategy at the moment?
Amen Our Revolution. I knew I associated Tom Steyer’s name with the Republican Party. That muthafucker is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Please publish when he was a Republican? My memory is faulty but I knew that he was a fake Democrat. Tell us when he was a Republican please before we DEMS make a serious mistake we will regret. He has been throwing money around California like seed money to get his name out there. I do not trust Tom Steyer.
Not a surprise the main other candidates include a hispanic man and a woman
I'd posit that it's a commonsense issue at this point. The Dem field is too crowded with a ridiculous number of unknowns, frankly. Looking at polling shows Steyer and Porter the two top polling Dems now that Swalwell has dropped out, and personally, I think Porter did herself some major damage with her on camera surliness and conduct unbecoming in the video that came out on her. Because of the way their voting system works in CA, Dems are fearful that the race could end up with no Dem on the ballot, so I'd guess endorsements are going to be somewhat based on 'best bets'. Under the current scourge at the national level, Dems best chances are to take as many races as they can and it's horribly unsettling to think that an R could govern the state of CA under trump still at the helm especially. I'd suggest that perfect is always the enemy of good, this coming election more so than ever and in part, the steadfast "no billionaires' stand is analogous to the pro Gaza stand that kept too many Dems from voting for Harris - look where that got us. No thanks to a repeat of that outcome. Also, I'd add that the anti-billionaire sentiment maybe needs more nuance as there are definitely decent ones out there, in particular, JB Pritzker who has been an extremely effective Governor in IL and I've seen, heard, and read nothing but very positive assessments of his decency, effectiveness, and 'groundedness' as a human. Automatically rejecting a potentially very good candidate for having too much money is as shortsighted as rejecting one over not having enough money or being the 'wrong' color, gender, ethnicity, etc.
You’re framing this as a “commonsense, best bets” strategy, but that’s exactly where the problem is. Democrats keep saying they stand for principles, then immediately abandon them the second it becomes politically inconvenient. You can’t build trust with voters if your core message is basically “we don’t actually mean what we say when it matters.”
The issue isn’t that the field is crowded or that candidates like Katie Porter or Tom Steyer have flaws. Every candidate does. The issue is that party leadership consistently tries to pre-select “acceptable” candidates instead of letting voters decide. That’s not strategy.
This “we have to win at all costs” argument gets used every cycle, and every cycle it leads to the same outcome: watered-down positions, compromised messaging, and candidates who don’t actually inspire turnout.
You mentioned fear of Republicans winning under Donald Trump, but fear-based politics is exactly why Democrats keep underperforming relative to expectations. People don’t show up for fear long-term, they show up for conviction.
On the billionaire point, it’s not about whether someone like J. B. Pritzker is personally “good” or “effective.” It’s about consistency. If you say money in politics is corrupting, but then make exceptions when it’s politically convenient, that’s hypocrisy. Voters notice when rules only apply selectively.
And that’s the broader issue here: Democrats keep asking voters to compromise, to be pragmatic, to accept “good enough,” while not holding themselves to the same standard of consistency. You can’t criticize corruption, big money, or lack of representation on one hand, then turn around and justify it on the other because it helps your side win.
At some point, you either stand on principles or you don’t. Right now, the party is trying to do both, and it’s not working.
I think conflating ‘money in politics’ with candidates who have a lot of money is an error as they are two completely different things. In terms of ‘the party leadership’ trying to pre-select acceptable candidates, I think that’s actually part of their job description and what seems to bother voters most as of late is status quo,moderate candidates that should have aged out already. I’m not sure who would consider Bernie a member of party leadership and I thought it was his endorsement that triggered your disagreement. I don’t know what to say to the idea that Dems keep underperforming when for months now in race after race their over performance has been stunning in almost every case. I’m guessing I’m likely much older than you are and possibly that informs much of my attitude, though I’m also eminently just practical; I think ideals, conviction and principles should always be the standard but again, if Dems are not successful in wresting away control from those currently holding it, it won’t matter one iota if all our candidates met the purity test requirement, the bigger picture is the survival of country and whatever remnants of sanity still remain. Parsing principles won’t mean squat if Dems remain out of power for the foreseeable future and opposition to the Trump agenda needs to be united; I’d argue that we’ve lost some elections that we should have unquestionably won because too many folks decided the candidate on the ballot didn’t check enough boxes for them and withheld their vote and here we are. How much worse does the situation need to get before deciding that boycotting a candidate on ‘principle’ may not be the best strategy at the moment?
Amen Our Revolution. I knew I associated Tom Steyer’s name with the Republican Party. That muthafucker is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Please publish when he was a Republican? My memory is faulty but I knew that he was a fake Democrat. Tell us when he was a Republican please before we DEMS make a serious mistake we will regret. He has been throwing money around California like seed money to get his name out there. I do not trust Tom Steyer.