Politics

5 takeaways from California's first 2024 U.S. Senate election debate

Published

2 years ago

January 23, 2024

5 takeaways from California's first 2024 U.S. Senate election debate

California’s sleepy race to determine who will succeed Sen. Dianne Feinstein came alive Monday night at USC, when three congressional Democrats and a former-Dodger-turned-Republican-candidate clashed over the war in Gaza and pitched their plans to address homelessness and protect reproductive freedoms.

Reps. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, Katie Porter of Irvine and Barbara Lee of Oakland delighted in ripping into former baseball star Steve Garvey — a newcomer to politics and supporter of former President Trump — who appeared at times bemused and at times unprepared for the pile-on.

“Once a Dodger, always a Dodger,” Porter said, a shot at Garvey after he refused to say whether he’d vote for Trump this fall.

Monday’s debate, hosted by Fox 11 News and Politico, was the first of three scheduled before the March 5 primary election, when California voters will decide which two candidates will face off in November to decide the winner of one of the most coveted and powerful political posts in the state.

Up until the debate, the trio of Democrats had crisscrossed California and stayed focused on their vision for the state without descending into mudslinging. Monday was different. Porter homed in on the longtime political careers of Lee and Schiff, asserting that they accomplished little during their time in office — particularly when it came to passing healthcare reform and addressing the lack of affordable housing in California.

The latest polling from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, shows Schiff leading among likely voters, with 21% support compared with 17% for Porter and 13% for Garvey. Lee trails in fourth with 9%.

Monday’s showdown — which was televised statewide and broadcast on the radio — may help sway the roughly 21% of likely voters who report being undecided and who could determine the fate of the race.

For many, the debate was their first real glimpse at the candidates campaigning for the job.

Here are five takeaways from the first Senate debate in California.

Israel exposed the deepest divide

The war between Hamas and Israel in Gaza prompted some of the most vitriolic jousting from Porter, Lee and Schiff, who represent the spectrum of the Democratic Party on the subject. The trio disagree on little, but Lee’s call for a cease-fire the day after the attack on Israel stood in stark contrast to Schiff’s unflinching support for Israel. Schiff, who is Jewish, said that he backs President Biden’s path to pressure Israel to minimize civilian casualties but not say Israel should stop its operations in Gaza.

Schiff also said he was heartbroken by the loss of life among Palestinians, and said he supported the creation of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state that would exist alongside Israel.

“I support a two-state solution … but Israel has to defend itself,” Schiff said. “We can’t leave Hamas governing Gaza. They are still holding over 100 hostages, including Americans. I don’t know how you can ask any nation to cease fire when their people are being held by a terrorist organization.”

Israel’s attacks have resulted in the deaths of at least 25,000 people in Gaza, according to health authorities there, and accusations that Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which killed at least 1,200 in Israel and left a nation traumatized, amounted to genocide.

“Killing 25,000 civilians, it’s catastrophic, and it will never lead to peace for the Israelis, nor the Palestinians,” Lee said.

Unlike Schiff and Lee, who each took firm positions in support or opposition of aid to the Israeli army, Porter hedged. She reiterated that Israel should work “toward a lasting bilateral cease-fire in Gaza,” and said she wanted all the hostages freed and the resources to rebuild Gaza, as well as to ensure Israel is secure and a Palestinian state “can thrive.”

“Cease-fire is not a magic word,” Porter said. “You can’t say it and make it so.”

The discussion reflected the anger and polarization among voters on the subject. Recent Times polling found that Schiff supporters were far more likely to approve of Biden’s response to the war than Garvey or Lee supporters. Porter backers were split down the middle about how they felt about Biden’s diplomatic response.

For his part, Garvey said he backed Israel.

The controversy spilled outside the hall, where dozens of protesters chanted “cease-fire now” and decried the United States’ support of Israel in its invasion of Gaza.

Garvey struggled to articulate how he’d govern

The former Dodgers first baseman, who ended his all-star career with the San Diego Padres, appeared at ease onstage even as he struggled to articulate how he’d govern. Garvey tried to sell himself as an open-minded political outsider, unspoiled by Washington.

“California, with its vibrancy, led this country,” Garvey said of his early days in the state. “And then, all of a sudden, one party started to take over. There was only one voice in California. And this vibrant state became a murmur. As a conservative moderate, I thought it was time to stand up.”

Garvey joked about how his appearance “stimulated” a series of baseball references from his Democratic opponents, but Garvey himself peppered his remarks with sports metaphors and compared the U.S. Senate to being involved in a “team sport.” He counted his leadership during championships as a qualification for one of the highest political offices in the nation.

After being attacked for his past support of Trump and his refusal to say whether he’d vote for him again, Garvey lashed out at Porter and likened her criticism to the Houston Astros cheating on the way to winning the 2017 World Series against the Dodgers.

“You’re banging on that trash can just like the Astros did,” Garvey said — referring to how Astros players signaled teammates at the plate which pitch to expect.

Garvey entered the race late, forgoing a high-profile public campaign, and has been steadily climbing in the polls. The longevity of his appeal, however, may be threatened by his support for Trump — who remains despised by a strong majority of California voters — and his silence on some of the most divisive political issues of the day, including Israel.

At one point Porter pushed Garvey to say if he believed in a two-state solution in Israel. Garvey responded that it was “naive to think that a two-state solution can happen even in our generation.”

With Schiff in the lead, everyone else fights for second

Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the March primary advance to the November election regardless of political party. That’s good news for Schiff, who has a $35-million war chest and is building a healthy lead in the polls.

The recent UC Berkeley poll found that Schiff’s support among likely voters has risen from 14% in May 2023 to 21% in January.

Schiff went into the debate attempting to stay above the fray and avoid attacks from the candidates scrambling for second place. That changed Monday. Porter and Garvey, in a tight race for second, both went after the longtime Burbank congressman.

The former baseball player called Schiff a “liar” for his work on the congressional committee that investigated the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and asserted that the former president had colluded with Moscow during the 2016 campaign.

“Sir, you lied to 300 million people. You can’t take that back,” Garvey said. He said Schiff had been censured by House Republicans for lying.

Schiff used the attack to reiterate the case against Trump.

“I was censured for standing up to a corrupt president,” Schiff responded. “And you know something? I would do it all over again. Because that corrupt president, that president that’s been indicted with 91 felony counts, that president that you won’t refuse to support? Yeah, he’s a danger.”

Porter also attacked Schiff for taking political donations from fossil fuel companies, which she said undermined his past accomplishments of going after polluters when he was a federal prosecutor.

“First of all, I gave that money to you, Katie Porter,” said Schiff, who supported Porter’s runs for Congress. “And the only response I got was, ‘Thank you, thank you, thank you.’ But look, at the end of the day, it’s about what have you gotten done? I didn’t hear anything from Representative Porter about anything she’s actually accomplished.”

GOP candidate won’t take a stand on Trump

In a rare moment of unity, all three Democrats demanded that Garvey explain why he had voted for Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and whether he would vote for him again.

“Both times, he was the best person for the job,” Garvey said.

Garvey criticized Hillary Clinton as “entitled” and said Biden “stayed in the basement and only came out in controlled environments” during the 2020 campaign. He defended Trump’s record on national security and the economy but wouldn’t say whether he would vote for him again in 2024.

Schiff pressed Garvey on what he thought about Trump supporters violently attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to stop the peaceful transition of power after the former president falsely claimed the election was stolen.

“What more do you need to see of what he’s done to be able to say that you will not support him, that you will not vote to put him back in office? What more do any of us need to see?” Schiff said.

Garvey fumed that Schiff was “trying to paint me into the corner, trying to call me MAGA, mislead … I’m my own man. I make my own decisions.”

Porter and Lee didn’t let Garvey dismiss questions about his loyalty to Trump, however.

“He … refused to answer the question. Ballots go out in six weeks, Mr. Garvey. This is not the minor leagues,” Porter said. “Who will you vote for?”

Lee added: “You cannot waffle on this. You have to say if you support the MAGA extremist Republican agenda, led by Donald Trump to dismantle our democracy. Do you support that or not?”

Clash over abortion rights

The fight for the top two spots occasionally forced the three Democrats, who are all colleagues in Congress and have mostly similar policy views, to abandon their longtime approach of ignoring one another. Attacking the front-runner can pay off for candidates jockeying for a better position, but it runs the risk of alienating voters who don’t like to see internecine conflict between Democrats.

Porter lashed out at Schiff for listing abortion rights as an accomplishment on his campaign website in a post-Roe vs. Wade era, when millions of Americans have lost access to abortion services.

“As a mother of a young daughter, I do not feel like abortion rights have been accomplished,” Porter said.

Schiff responded that he has been a vocal backer of reproductive freedom, and that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe vs. Wade — upending a half-century of precedent on the constitutional right to an abortion — “has endangered the health and safety of millions of women.” He said he supports a law to legalize abortion nationally, and an expansion of the Supreme Court.

“When we start losing our rights as Americans, it is a sure sign that our democracy is in trouble,” Schiff said.

Lee said that as a teenager, she became pregnant and decided with her mother that her best option was to have an illegal abortion in Mexico. The dark clinic in a back alley was terrifying, she said. The experience was terrifying, she said.

She said she would work to eliminate the filibuster and end the Hyde Amendment, a ban on federal funding for abortion services.

Garvey said he would not vote for a federal ban on abortion, and that if elected, he would “support the voice of the people of California,” who in 2022 voted to codify the right to abortion in the state Constitution.

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

1 hour ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

: “Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”
Advertisement

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

2 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement.

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting. ”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

3 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.