comment: >
  
  And this won’t get anywhere near the attention that Porter’s announcement got. Wonder why.
context: Lee is a good rep and she was chair of the progressive caucus but she is too old. Porter and Schiff are much younger and Porter in particular has shown she can be an aggressive advocate for the people of California and the US in general. >
  
  Schiff is a no for me. >
  
  I think I'd much rather have Porter over both Schiff and Lee.  Lee is just too old, and sue me for being ageist, but I just don't think we need someone would be retired in any other field sitting in a body of only 99 other lawmakers.  And I love Schiff, but I'm pretty sure he's in a safer congressional district than Porter, and would hate to lose that seat.  Sorry Schiffy, that's politics baby. >
  
  If Schiff's district is safer than Porter's, doesn't that mean you should prefer Schiff to run rather than Porter? Because Schiff's seat is less likely to be lost by another candidate. >
  
  Babara Lee is 76 years old.
  Catie Porter is 49 years old. >
  
  Krysten Sinema is 46 years old. >
  
  Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is the youngest sitting senator at 35, replacing Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who at 41 was the youngest senator of the 116th Congress. Ossoff is the youngest person elected to the U.S. Senate since Don Nickles in 1980.
  My point is that everyone is hoping Feinstein to retire because she is too old. >
  
  No, everyone is hoping Feinstein retires because she sucks. Age has nothing to do with suckability--just look at the Republicans. >
  
  Lee is more progressive than Porter but Lee is barely younger than Feinstein. I want a younger House and Senate but I supported Sanders for POTUS, so I have no room to argue. CA has an interesting choice. Both are better than Feinstein though. >
  
  And Krysten Sinema is 46.... what's your point? >
  
  We prefer to grant the benefits of incumbency to candidates we agree with politically, even better if they are younger as they can extend that influence over a larger span of time.
  Take the same candidate and make them older a d that incumbency benefit is weaker as their life is closer to the end.
  The worst case is Sinema as that incumbency benefit goes to a rotten husk. >
  
  Interesting that you bring up incumbency because by running for Senate, Katie Porter is risking us a seat in the House. 
  She is coming from a very competitive and newly-drawn district in Orange County that she won very narrowly. In fact, she's probably the only Democrat that can win that seat now. If she's elevated to the Senate, she may as well be gifting her House seat to a Republican. 
  Strategically it makes most sense to back Barbara Lee whose vacancy from her D+40 district will likely elevate another Progressive to Congress--of course, this would only matter to you if you want 3 Progressives in Congress, instead of just 2 (+1 new Republican). >
  
  Will Feinstein just retire so Newson can appoint Porter? >
  
  Except he wouldn’t appoint her, he’d appoint some corporate friendly candidate >
  
  I’d much prefer Porter, but I’d take Lee or Porter over Schiff >
  
  I’m afraid that if too many Democrats throw their hat into the ring while only 2 Republicans do the same, then the Republicans will end up being the top 2 in the blanket primary.