How Katie Porter’s ‘disastrous’ interview revealed path toward more moderate Sacramento politics

Katie Porter just provided moderate Californians with a way to change the course of state politics.

The former member of Congress from Orange County is running for Governor.

She was the leading Democrat contender — at least before this week — in the March 2026 primary.

That was before “the interview.”

Porter was in a TV station where she was being interviewed by CBS California investigative reporter Julie Watts.

Watts asked Porter the following: “What do you say to the 40% of California voters — who you’ll need in order to win — who voted for Trump?”

Porter responded, “How would I need them in order to win, ma’am?” before turning to someone off camera and laughing.

Porter then said she would not need the support of Trump voters if she faces a Republican candidate in the November 2026 general election.

Watts then asked, “What if it’s you versus another Democrat?”

Porter responded, “I don’t intend that to be the case.”

There was then a bit of back and forth. Porter said the reporter was “unnecessarily augmentative.”

Porter said she was not going to keep “doing this” and threatened to walk out.

The governor hopeful said she wasn’t going to proceed “not like this . . . Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.”

Then she added, “Ma’am I don’t want to have an unhappy experience, and I don’t want this all on camera.”

Then, according to CBS, Porter did stay and answered more questions.

It goes without saying her Democratic opponents — as well as the extremely long shot Republicans that have delusions of actually winning in November 2026 ­— are having a field day.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, definitely more moderate than Porter, has bought TV time to run the entire three-minute entire clip of Porter’s exchange with the reporter as a political commercial.

Another candidate, State Controller Betty Yee, didn’t think that voters needed to watch the clip to make up their mind.

Yee said it was clear Porter lacked the temperament to be governor and that she should drop out of the race immediately.

The Republicans and the talking heads that do their yapping are making sure the social media was doing a Hiroshima on Porter’s candidacy thanks to the three minute video clip.

Of course, from a party animal perspective, it’s just that for the Republicans — a party.

Regardless of what happens in the next 13 months, the chances of a Republican being governor of California is about as likely as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being the Vice President candidate on the Republican ticket in 2028 with J.D. Vance as the presidential nominee.

While everyone is focusing on Porter being the political equivalent of a snowflake, that’s not the most interesting point on the video that Politico contends plunged her campaign into “disaster.”

What is the other point?

Read what Porter said.

A Democrat against a Republican, even if one is moderate Republican, has no fear of losing the general election for governor in the year 2026.

But a liberal Democrat against a moderate Democrat? Game on.

Instead of Republicans fanning the flames and crowing about Porter’s seemingly pending implosion and dreaming of one of their two right of moderate governor candidates winning in November 2026, they should be thinking of California first.

The first question they need to ask is do they want to lose 100 percent or move the political dial a bit back toward the middle?

What left-center Democrats fear most in the general election for governor is a moderate — Republican or Democrat.

That is what Porter said, but in a lot less words

All people who identify as Republicans need to put California above party politics.

And they can do so by strategically using California’s open primary law that went into effect in 2011 to undermine a further leftward switch.

They have two choices.

Cast votes for one of the low-profile, little known, more to the right candidates that will be listed as Republicans.

Or they can research the Democratic candidates, determine the one that is the most moderate and to appeal to moderate voters from both parties as well as among independents, and vote for them instead of a Republican.

Those that normally in primaries need to appeal to their party’s base.

Then they be able to move to the middle it gets votes to win the general.

California, for all intent and purposes, has been effectively a one-party state for years.

Given the two top vote getters advance in an open primary, a moderate Democrat getting enough Republican voters to cross over in the primary could secure the No. 2 place.

It may mean the ballot in November 2026 may not have a candidate for governor that is a Republican but it would mean a more moderate would be who, as Porter conceded in an around about way, has an excellent chance of winning the office.

Porter, or any other Democrat that is more left than moderate, is far from being a shoo-in facing a moderate in the general election.

So the moderate is a Democrat.

Who cares?

They would put 40 percent of California’s voters that Porter is comfortable to ignore back into play.

As such, it could stem the state from continuing a further march to the left and start tugging it back to the middle.

The Republican Party in California is clearly in the political wilderness.

Finding their way back means the GOP adopting a strategy that admits, for at least the time being, that non-moderate Republicans have no prayer in hell of winning a statewide office in California.

You then use the same approach to build a more moderate party to the point that it can at least counter some of the more “extremes” they harp against in Sacramento where there isn’t a super majority of Democrats.

It would be a world where moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans working together would counter more liberal Democrats.

Or the Republican Party in California can continue on a path where the right leaning base of the GOP makes sure the left leaning base of the Democratic Party continues to hold every statewide constitutional office in the Golden State and a chokehold on policy and spending.