* There are a lot of Republican voters in California who are happy to vote for Democrats, so even better if they're more towards the right
* I'm not old enough to have voted in too many elections, but her opponent in 2012 was a joke
* She doesn't really have an anti-Silicon Valley reputation (yet)
* California is more than just Silicon Valley
* Likelihood of voting correlates directly with age, and Silicon Valley is dominated by young people
* Her family is just so established in California politics, so the money's rolling in. Her husband is chairman of the University of California Board of Regents.
California is a conservative state outside of SF and LA, although because of their populations, the state is owned by the Democractic party.
Feinstein is a party machine candidate who can appeal across the aisle to those conservatives. Sure, she'll lose some Democrats, but the base will stick to voting with the party, and enough conservatives will crossover that it all works out.
Note that if SV goes to war over this, and it should, it could change the balance in the state. The problem with this from the SV point of view is that if you sabotage Feinstein, you don't get another Democrat. You get a Republican. And I imagine the Republicans are looking for a little payback if they can ever get the levers of power back.
So what do you do? Do you get rid of Feinstein over this one-issue, idiotic and harmful security state nonsense, then end up with a bunch of folks in power that might hurt you on a bunch of things, or do you grit your teeth and bear it?
Looks like the compromise is to let her posture a bit for the conservatives, then fund the opposition to make sure that nothing she proposes gets through. That's a tricky game to play, though.
> The problem with this from the SV point of view is that if you sabotage Feinstein, you don't get another Democrat. You get a Republican.
Well, not necessarily. California abolished partisan primaries a few years ago. The way it works now is that all candidates for a position run in the same primary, and the top two advance to the general election, regardless of affiliation.
I'm not sure if there have been any races so far that involved two Democrats (it's only been two or so election cycles since the change) but the 2016 Senate race seems likely to be between two Democrats.
Of course there's still the problem of finding a Democrat with enough clout and balls to challenge Feinstein in 2018.
Sources please. I did a research on her legislation and voting record back then, expecting to find horrible things, and found her work to be thoughtful and helpful to the populous.
Things have dramatically changed since then, unfortunately. It'd be fascinating to uncover what caused this marked phase change.
Incidentally, my testimony in the second session that day is at
http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann/judiciary.html, along with my answers to
subsequent written questions from Senators Thurmond, Grassley, Leahy, and
Feinstein. At the end of the first session. Senator Feinstein excused
herself to go to another hearing, but remarked that if FBI Director Freeh
said he needed access to essentially everything, we'd better give it to him.
I don't know about her voting record to know if that's true or not, but again, I'm talking about her reputation, which is partially shaped by fact but also shaped by public perception. And she's not really perceived as anti-tech.
* There are a lot of Republican voters in California who are happy to vote for Democrats, so even better if they're more towards the right
* I'm not old enough to have voted in too many elections, but her opponent in 2012 was a joke
* She doesn't really have an anti-Silicon Valley reputation (yet)
* California is more than just Silicon Valley
* Likelihood of voting correlates directly with age, and Silicon Valley is dominated by young people
* Her family is just so established in California politics, so the money's rolling in. Her husband is chairman of the University of California Board of Regents.
I'm not a fan either.