3 ms·
> If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out. Often these incompetent people
by bhouston 3y ago
> If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out.
Often these incompetent people are in "safe seat" regions. Either heavily democrat or republican. Voters won't switch parties just because representative is incompetent. There should be another options.
- alistairSH 3y agoFeinstein was a Senator and CA uses a "jungle primary" for state-wide elections - there's no "safe seat" in that model. In her last election, both final candidates were Democrats. Neither party could unseat her. Voters have been clear that they preferred Feinstein to anybody else. So the question is why? Was it her power in the Senate? Was she particularly good at bringing pork to CA? Or was it just money and the political machine? Probably a lot of that last item - the parties themselves have incentives to keep winning politicians around - they're good for fund-raising.
- giantrobot 3y agoRank in Senate committee is literally about seniority. Replacing Feinstein meant the state and Democratic Party losing power in the Senate.
- koolba 3y agoThe rules for rank in committees is per party and it’s only Democrats that have indefinite positions of seniority. Republicans have caps on number of terms as chair, etc. The only people losing power with her early retirement would have been her handlers. She hasn’t made a decision on her own in a long time. And when she did pretend to do so, the handlers would “help her remember the right choice”.
- bombcar 3y agoLet's not pretend that Feinstein wouldn't still win re-election even now.