Lee, Schiff and Porter would all be good picks.

I love Porter, but Schiff is also a great choice, as well as Lee. Too many good choices.

I love Lee and think she is a great Representative; but she would be 78 on the day she would be sworn in. We need younger and newer leaders who could serve multiple terms if need be.

Her district is very red and I don't know if anyone else could win it.

Lee's and Schiff's districts are reliably blue.

are Reliably BLUE? 💙

R+2. That technically qualifies as purple.

But it's still a tougher uphill climb to keep the seat than if Schiff ran. At D+23, a cardboard cutout of Schiff could run for the seat and win with a D by its name. That's how blue that district is.

My heart is with Porter as a Senator, because I just love her, her politics and her smarts so much. But I'm also a pragmatist who thinks it's more important not to lose seats in either chamber of Congress--or at least to do everything possible not to lose any. I'd rather go with the sure thing of a Democrat replacing Schiff than lose Katie's seat to an r thug. She is without a doubt the best shot that the 47th has for remaining D.

I used to live in what is now her district. That a D is in the seat there is astounding. That area used to be represented by the likes of B-1 Bob Dornan. Anyone who remembers anything about 1980s CA politics remembers that fascist thug. He was MAGA decades before there was MAGA. Name the hateful -ist, and he was the embodiment of it.

best person Win!

But let's see who else runs.

Not Schiff for various reasons, and I think Lee's time would have been when Boxer retired.

But it's early.

In a crowded field Porter may end up winning though if the Justice Dems/Bernie wing consolidate their support behind her.

No one in California concerned about what's going on in the state will care about this.

Twitter will care. That's nice for them.

I'm not in California, but this question was asked of all DUers, and I am certainly one that cares.

It doesn't mean Porter is dead to me or anything, but it certainly factors into my decision of who to support -- and potentially donate to... -- in this race.

I selected Schiff, but I could see myself supporting others depending on who all decides to run.

Most voters in California don't even know who Nina Turner is. Why would they? And why would they care in the absolute slightest?

It's not going to be a factor where it counts - the vast majority of actual California voters, of which I am one. I'm sure DU will discuss it at great length, however.

Remember when "people in the know!" absolutely knew McCarthy wasn't going to be Speaker?

So . . . how'd that go?

I think it's interesting that people want two men to represent such a diverse and progressive state after it was represented by wonderful Democratic women for so long.

But that's none of my business.

Some people will care.

I was actually going to post this same comment about how Porter supported the deplorable Nina Turner and found that someone else beat me to it. I actually saw a similar comment yesterday on another forum I frequent, and, yes, there were -- gasp! -- actual voting Californians in there as well!

Will it be a huge issue? No.

Will it absolutely matter to some voters? Yes.

And, in a primary where, odds are most Democrats will hold very similar views on the vast majority of issues, a """minor""" issue like supporting a terrible person and third-party promoter over a good and strong Democrat will come into play in some people's votes.

Maybe the same strain of progressivism that props up Nina Turner would mistakenly that it's some shock that people would support Schiff, but it's not to a progressive like me nor to the many others that would support Schiff among this particular group of candidates.

weigh as I make my final decision about which Democrat gets my vote.

And the Nina Turner preoccupations are 100% an online phenomenon.

I have never once heard anything from a person offline that would ever make me think any differently.

"But Nina Turner!" is a phrase I have only witnessed in very, very narrow political spaces.

who don't follow politics closely (as in the average California voter) then I agree entirely.

However, in real life, this is the one serious issue I have with a person I am otherwise likely to support over the Democratic contenders.

Still early for final decisions.

Yes, voters who follow online political minutiae like endorsements and tweets might care. Although the effect of that is not a given. You and I are both such types and we're 50/50 on it.

Unless the election comes down to like a tenth of a percentage, I doubt it'll be a thing.

However, I fully expect it to suck up quite a lot of oxygen online, particularly among out of staters who neither know nor care what goes on in the state, but like having Twitter fights.

The power grid and climate change might be mentioned. Might. Maybe I'll start playing topic count. How many times I hear about Nina Turner over the next 18 months online vs. how many times the name is ever actually utterly to me offline. I think the result will be incredibly close to a billion-to-none. But I could do it with other things. Climate change, the power grid, housing affordability. Pick a topic. Compare mentions.

I'm already exhausted just thinking about it, because I know how true it's about to be. Le sigh.

most of whom have no idea who Nina Turner is, or why the endorsement was problematic.

However, it is a huge negative with me. My only negative.

I wrote her office at the time and expressed my disappointment. My mother (now of memory) was one of those staunch Democratic volunteers who worked very hard to help put Katie Porter in office. Porter is a sentimental favorite on that alone, and has many more accomplishments in her favor.

The endorsement sticks out. And will be something that I will need to weigh as I decide which Democrat to support for the seat.

I'm leaning Porter at this juncture.

And support for Nina Turner may mostly be an online phenomenon, but distaste for her is not. You seem to have it backwards. The types of people pumping up Nina Turner are very much the "always online" crowd, but the people that do not like her and are the ones that have voted against her in the past, those are very much real (as evidenced by her electoral history).

You've had multiple examples of very much real people pointing out how this one particular issue would dissuade them from supporting Porter in a primary that is sure to be filled with plenty of good Democrats that did not make the very unfortunate choice of supporting someone as terrible as Nina Turner and yet you want to close your eyes to it.

It matters in narrow online political spaces.

We are having this discussion in a narrow online political space. I expect it to matter to some people who dwell in those spaces.

However, with voters who don't live in these spaces (which is most of them), how do you think that poll would go? Do you think if KTVU bounced out and took a poll of California voters, "Do you give a shit about Nina Turner?" those affirmatives would come back with overwhelming numbers? "I'm here reporting live on Market Street, Bob, and there is a rowdy crowd out here with signs shouting, "But Nina Turner!"

No. The vast, vast majority of people will not care.

But the twitterverse will care. Greatly. And it will be discussed ad nauseum. I'll be detailing it in my forthcoming book: Political Navels and How to Spot Them.

not that my vote for any california senator counts (i'm in illinois)

Still picked Porter in this poll. A shame that California gets just 2 senators with a population equal to like 20 other states combined.

I feel like Schiff should have an office of significant importance.

I feel like Porter's best chance to remain a significant player is to run for the Senate. I feel like depending on Orange County to come through for her in the next house election is too risky. But run for the U.S.Senate would be an easier hill to climb.

Sort of a hard poll.