1. Katie Unbars the Door
The smart money has been on Katie Porter running for Governor if Kamala Harris didn’t. Well, either Kamala isn’t running or Katie got tired of waiting; either way, she has just announced. I have excised all of the fundraising appeals and volunteer seeking from the email below because I’m treating this as news rather than a campaign letter; accordingly, I got rid of the “Paid for by” part, because she didn’t.
[Also: I don’t know what “LeftNet” is; I thought Katie was still the love object of PCCC (Progressive Change.)]
Announcement: I’m running for Governor
Katie Porter
From:team@leftnet.org
Tue, Mar 11 at 11:24 AM
Katie Porter here with exciting news: I’m launching my campaign to be California’s next governor.
I didn’t make this decision lightly. But with an emboldened Trump in the White House and MAGA loyalists doing his bidding day in and day out, California — and our country — need a leader who is ready to go toe to toe with extremists.
I first ran for office in 2018. I was a single mom of three little kids, running in a district that Republicans had held for decades. But I ran because I couldn’t sit on the sidelines as I watched Trump try and destroy our country. As a consumer protection attorney, I wanted to use my experience to hold him and his administration accountable.
With the support of folks like you, I made it to Congress, where I was able to claw back billions from drug companies who ripped us off and pass laws cracking down on health care companies that wrongfully denied care.
I feel the same call to serve today that I did in 2018.
California is experiencing real challenges. We must become resilient to natural disasters and tackle climate change. We must address the high cost of housing, health care, and groceries. And we must continue to protect our LGBTQ+ community members and safeguard abortion access.
We don’t have to choose between defending our values and tackling our challenges. We can work with businesses to create good paying jobs in California and hold corporations accountable. We can keep communities safe and uphold civil rights.
I’m never one for BS or sugar coating, so I’ll be honest — this race won’t be a walk in the park! There are already multiple candidates in the race to succeed Governor Newsom, who is term-limited, and the primary election is just over a year away.
I’m asking you to join our movement to stand up to Trump and his cronies.
2. The Ripples Created in the Race
Katie Porter’s announcement is bad news for her Democratic rivals in this already overstuffed race: Toni Atkins, Eleni Kounalakis, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, Betty Yee, and Stephen Kloobeck (founder of “Diamond Resorts”). That’s not because Katie is a cinch to win — although I think she joins the top tier — but because it muddies the race substantially without necessarily chasing other candidates out, the way that Kamala’s candidacy would have. It’s bad news for them because is carves the slices of pie even more narrowly, a cardinal sin in a Top Two primary system!
It’s potentially great news for Republicans — who with a deeply split Democratic vote have a chance of shutting Democrats out of the Top Two runoff. Unfortunately, the only top-tier (though maybe second tier if others enter the race) is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. (None of the other declared candidates even has a Wikipedia entry.) Brian Dahle, who finished second in 2022, isn’t in this race yet — but he would plausibly be even higher tier than Bianco; given their bases don’t overlap much, they truly could take the top two slots against this Democratic field, if it stays as it is. (If Dahle doesn’t jump in, then Lahnee Chen — even more respectable among Democrats — would be next most likely.)
But do you know who this is definitely great news for? Yes, you guessed it: Green Party candidate Dr. Rudolph Bilal “Butch” Ware, a historian at UC Santa Barbara, who among other things is steadfast in his support for Hamas and opposition to giving military aid to Israel! (And, more broadly, to Zionism in general.) Being anti-aid-to-Israel-to-use-to-bomb-Gaza gives him a pretty honking huge constituency if he can get the message out and the Democrats don’t coalesce. He’ll be uncontested on the far left — and if there’s only one high-tier Republican running they could afford to steer a lot of money into promoting Ware with the intention of dividing and embarrassing the left. (Plus — they could win this race!)
This is literally the first time in my life I have ever seen a viable path to a major office by a Green candidate. I’m still pissed off at Jill Stein for not picking her states in a way that she wouldn’t end up electing Trump, but: if she wanted to burn down the status quo and start the country over, she certainly did what she could to make it happen.
I think that the AIPAC types would literally vote for any Republican, even a swastika-waving Klansman, over Ware. (Note: that preceding phrase was not a reference to Sheriff Bianco.) And if this put AIPAC crosswise of all of the other Democratic constituencies in the country (because California is influential!), I would not be entirely sorry; liberal and even moderate Jews have to learn not to give in fully to Israeli policies. I think that AIPAC would easily go for Dahle; enthusiastically go for Lahnee, and — well, I’m not sure that they would go for Chad Bianco. And that’s why I think that they’d get strongly behind someone like Lahnee in the primary.
3. How Will Democratic Candidates Respond?
You might think that the plausible prospect, even a small one, of a Chad Bianco vs. Butch Ware runoff for Governor would be such a disaster — ripping Democratic Party solidarity to ribbons with an impact that would last for years if Democrats refused to join me and presumably Vern in supporting Ware over Bianco — would create enormous pressure for the party not to allow this to happen. Hahahahahaha — good luck with that!
Let’s go back to that list of Democratic names. Toni Atkins, Eleni Kounalakis, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Betty Yee. Kounalakis, who is 59, has already put in eight years as Lieutenant Governor, waiting for a hoped-for promotion. Running for a different office is possible, but it would be a letdown. Yee spent eight years as State Controller, and at age 67 she’s already getting long in the tooth to wait another 4-8 years to try for the top spot. (She could run for Lieutenant Governor herself next year, possibly pushing Fiona Ma out of the race, which would be a blessing for the state — but that’s not Governor.) Villaraigosa, who at 72 is even longer-toothed, was Mayor of Los Angeles for 8 years and spent 6 years in the State Assembly, two as Majority Leader and two as Speaker. A lesser state office seems unlikely to suit him. Tony Thurmond, who is 54, is finishing eight years as State School Superintendent, and while he’s gotten the jump on others in terms of campaigning that’s not a natural direct step to the Governor’s Mansion. (In fact, I think it would be unprecedented.) Finally, Toni Atkins, who broke new ground for lesbians in both the Assembly (where she was Speaker for one term) and the State Senate (where she served as President Pro Tempore); she was only the third person to have served in both capacities — and the two earlier ones did so in the 19th century.) She could also seek a lower office, though she might consider it beneath her dignity; she is another one who (at age 62) could challenge Fiona Ma the Lt. Governor position and run again in 8 years.
Will any of them give way to Porter? My guess is the Villaraigosa, the oldest, will not. And I expect that Kounalakis, who has reason to think that she has groomed herself to ascend to the position, won’t either. Thurmond has a lot of time left to run for office and should probably seek a different office, but he seems stubbornly attached to this race. Atkins is already listed in Wikipedia as a potential Lt. Gov. candidate — Ma herself originally ran for Governor before switching — and she’d probably be wise to switch as well. (If she does, she could contact us. We’ve got archives….) As for poor Betty Yee, who has kept on getting edged out of things, I think that she might get left standing up in this game of musical chairs. She should certainly get into the race against Ma if Atkins doesn’t.
Even if three of the above drop out, the two left plus Katie does leave the door open to a Bianco-Ware runoff. (And, seriously, Ware is going to get a lot of votes in the primary, especially with a raucous fistfight going on among Democrats.) It’s in each of these Democratic candidates’ interest to have only two Democrats running in this race; but it’s also in each one’s interest to be one of those two. I have a sense that the slow motion car crash we see forming will prove hard to resolve, and it will go on the way to a bitter end. Happily, OJB is sure to have someone to root for!
Imo the primary will be brutal and I also think that if Katie is running then Kamala is not. Once a lot of the lesser Dem candidates drop out as the race goes on, support will consolidate if it seems likely that a Dem will be locked out (especially once Bianco and Ware have a larger platform and people see how crazy they are).
I wouldn’t call Ware crazy: I’d call him iconoclastic and radical. His “support for Hamas” was essentially along the lines of “if you’ve been oppressed for long enough and nothing is changing for the better over time, it’s reasonable to do something more attention getting in order to shake things up. (And he notes that our own national history, including its formation, has examples of this.) You may not agree with this — and you might in fact be perfectly happy with the oppression of Palestinians, which is likely a majority (even if not always strongly held) position in California — but it’s not crazy. We put the Palestinian issue on the back burner for a long time, deferring to both Israeli intransigence and Palestinian bravado, and it was not sustainable, so things boiled over. And pulling ourselves out from under Netanyahu’s thumb is probably critical to ally larger solution — and our being willing to withhold aid is a lever to doing so, at least if used judiciously — as Clinton and Obama believed and as Biden and Harris espoused (but could not act upon before the election because the ensuing flood of AIPAC money would have buried either of them.)
Are there other things that lead you to think that Ware is crazy, or is it just Palestine, or is it not even Palestine — in which event what I’ve said above is irrelevant! I’m interested in hearing from you.
Personally I don’t think his stance on Palestine makes him crazy, but I just don’t think the general electorate will see it any other way. It’s also a gubernatorial race, so I doubt that the issue of Israel-Palestine will come up.
Mainly it’s the noncommittal stance on abortion (which is already legal in the state) that I think is kind of crazy, especially in California. Although I could be totally wrong and he might clarify as it goes on, but I am curious too to see how it develops!
Palestine would definitely come up if he looks viable. The issue will heavily influence Jewish voters and donors, given that many of them identify opposition to Israeli policy — let alone Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the “Holy Land” — as ipso facto anti-Semitism (by which they mean anti-Jewish bigotry. And they’d consider me an apostate for pulling quotes where I did in the previous sentence.) Israel has replaced the concept of God for many Jews (who are largely atheist, agnostic, or theist, but largely appreciate the traditions for cultural reasons.) The Holocaust is probably more salient in the lives of Jews than the Crucifixion is for most Christians; Hitler drove my tribe out of their mind. In a sense, self-preservation after the Holocaust IS the main tenet of the Jewish religion these days.
But, I think that there are enough people who are aching to express their contempt for the Democratic Party for its refusal to stop funding Israel’s war on Gaza that Ware could get 25% — as most voters won’t give much of a damn about the slight differences between up to 6 Democratic candidates. And 25% might well be enough for second place if Republicans get an aggregate 30-35% and Dems carve up the pie fairly equally.
I disagree with Ware’s “16 weeks sounds about right” view on abortion, but I don’t think it’s that close to his heart. And as you note, abortion rights (at least up until viability) are, as I recall, firmly established in California law. Would pro-choice voters really let Bianco win (and appoint judges!) over Ware because they think that Ware is insufficiently pro-choice? I really doubt it.
That’s a very fair analysis! I think it will be a very very long shot, but crazier things have happened in the past. The stars might align here.
By the way, I skipped over the question of whether Katie would make a good Governor.
I think that she would. She may be a high-handed “my way or the highway” type, but she’d be similar to Newsom or Brown (and not similar to Schwarzenegger or Wilson), and that’s good enough for me. Most importantly, I think that she would end the deadly practice, common to Brown and Newson, of not letting the legislature know ahead of time what bills would be headed for a veto and why. This wastes an obscene amount of effort and precious time on the parts of legislators, lobbyists, and activists. It’s infuriating and wasteful.
If she’s going to be an obstacle, then let people know HOW AND WHEN AND WHY she will be an obstacle — and what needs to change for her to let a bill pass her without a veto override. Katie is the type who wants to explain her position on *everything* — yes, yes, I am too — but she also cares about good government and good governance (not the same thing!), and I think she would set a standard in this regard for subsequent Governors to emulate. Others candidates might be able to do the same, but for Katie it’s “duck to water.”
She still living in subsidized government housing?
Last I checked, she was no longer on the UCI Law faculty and moved to Seal Beach, so I don’t think so.
What’s wrong with that? It’s a perk that universities sometimes use to attract faculty, in lieu of an even higher cash offer.
Nothing, as long as you aren’t pretending to be an academic while actually being a career politician.
Keeping one to enable the fiscal resources for the other? Yeah, that’s a special kind of hypocrite.
Ryan, first I apologize for your post going to spam; the system has been doing that sometimes of late. Happens to Zenger too, but it’s not ideological. Luckily I got there shortly after you posted.
I don’t know why you say that she is “pretending to be an academic.” Neither of us knows what services she may be doing for the law school this term or next — or even next year while she’s campaigning. For one thing, she’s an absolutely top-level recruiter of prospective students, potential faculty, potential visiting scholars, and grant-makers. For another, she can serve productively on committees remotely, during travel time and perhaps other down time, as well as reading an commenting on faculty and student writing.
Your criticism depends on the presumption that she cannot be giving UCI value for its money if she is running for Governor. I’d say that, on the contrary, Porter has been and will continue to be giving UCI Law value for its salary, to whatever extent she takes it, due to the importance of publicity and star power in what is still a relatively new institution.
Your criticizing her keeping for a job so that she can donate to her own campaign, if that’s what she’s doing, seems surprising and misplaced. If we presume that she is giving UCI Law value for their money, what interest is it of yours what legal use she pursues with it?
Good to see your name here, by the way, and i hope you’re doing well.
It’s not that she is pretending. She is not like us. She couldn’t earn a living without being on the gubernment dole. She couldn’t work her way up the corporate ladder. She’d break the first rung. The A students teach.
I expect that she could, but why should she want to? She’s been very successful and consequential in government work — what you for some reason call a “dole” rather than a “calling.” The work that she did with Sen. Warren on the CFPB was excellent and groundbreaking. Maybe you’re unfamiliar with it. I can send you a Wikipedia page or something.
I think you’re arguing with claims I didn’t make.
No worries about the comment. I still have access somewhere . . . If it was really important I’d go dig it out myself! But thank you!
Oh, geez, sorry! When you said: “Nothing [is wrong with living in university subsidized housing], as long as you aren’t pretending to be an academic while actually being a career politician.” You added “Keeping one to enable the fiscal resources for the other [renders one] a special kind of hypocrite,” I thought you were talking about Katie!
I thought you were saying (1) that she lives in subsidized housing (rather than accepting a less expensive form of compensation from the school than giving her more cash), (2) she is “pretending to be an academic,” (3) she is merely a “career politician,” and (4) using income from working at a job to help fund one’s political campaign. I addressed those insinuations (as you apparently don’t want me to call them “claims”) in my previous comment. I presume that she is either providing the Law School (and perhaps the University as a whole) with reasonable services to justify the compensation of living space and whatever else they’ve done to lure and retain her) or she has accepted an appropriately reduced income. If you have actual information that she’s getting something for nothing, you have a scoop and we’d be happy to publish it.
That’s a lot of words, Greg.
Still… what were you originally trying to say?
I have faith in your reading comprehension, Ryan, should you decide to employ it.
I dunno she’s California enough for me. And of course she couldn’t win in Iowa, it’s too Republican.
I’m still mad at her for leaving her Congressional seat, risking losing it, making Barbara Lee’s Senate run hopeless, but still I think she’d be an okay governor. And could probably win.
California will screw itself in any case.
No she said she was teaching at UCI during an interview on CNN this week re her announcing her campaign for governor. But; who knows, she may be lying.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/03/13/katie_porter_to_run_for_ca_gov_how_are_we_going_to_deal_with_trump_how_are_we_going_to_deal_with_some_of_our_challenges.html (Video of interview embedded in article)