“I don’t want this all on camera,” Porter said after fumbling a series of questions from CBS California investigative reporter Julie Watts.
If you’re running for governor of California, there’s no greater PR catastrophe than publicly unraveling on camera. A harmless slip of the tongue or an awkward soundbite won’t sink a campaign. But a full-blown meltdown for all to see—over the course of several excruciating minutes, no less—is a worst-case scenario for any high-profile candidate.
That’s how critics are describing what just happened in a now-viral interview with gubernatorial candidate and former Congresswoman Katie Porter. Once a darling of the Left, Porter was—until today—considered by most to be the frontrunner for the California Governor’s race after Gavin Newsom terms out in January 2027.
To call it a campaign setback would be generous. This was the political equivalent of hitting the self-destruct button on live television.
“I don’t want this all on camera,” Porter said after fumbling a series of questions.
In an interview with CBS California investigative reporter Julie Watts, Porter became visibly agitated when Watts pressed her with a routine series of follow-up questions which all other candidates in the governor’s race handled without incident. Over the course of the video, Porter laughs mockingly about the prospect of needing the votes of Trump supporters, backtracks on her position, threatens to leave the interview, and accuses Watts of being “unnecessarily argumentative” for asking follow-up questions.
The exchange began innocuously enough. Watts asked Porter how she planned to win over the nearly 40 percent of Californians who voted for Donald Trump in 2024. A fair question. Porter responded by leaning forward with a furrowed expression and sarcastically asking: “How would I need them in order to win, ma’am?” Porter then turns to face the camera directly and leans forward, smiling smugly.
Watts follows up by asking a clarifying question: “Do you think you’ll get 60% [of the vote]? Everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you?”
“In a general election? Yes,” Porter responded. “If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump.”
“What if it’s another Democrat?” Watts asked, referring to California’s jungle primary system where statewide races will always come down to two candidates, regardless of political party. Under this system, it is entirely possible that Californians will only have a choice between one of two Democrats for Governor.
“I don’t intend that to be the case,” Porter responded. This is, of course, entirely outside of her control.
“So, how do you not intend that to be the case? Are you going to ask them not to run?” asked Watts.
Porter goes on to describe how she has represented Orange County—a purple region—in Congress, which insinuates that she has had to earn the support of Republicans.
“But you just said you don’t need those Trump voters,” Watson reminded her.
“You asked me if I needed them to win,” said Porter. Then, before Watts could respond, Porter held up both of her hands and interrupted her: “I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative. What is your question?”
Watts calmly responded by reminding her this is the same question that has been asked of all other candidates, and the question itself pertains to the controversial Prop 50. If approved by voters, California would adopt a new slate of Congressional District maps that were not drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission—as is outlined in the California State Constitution—but instead by sitting Democrats who stated that their explicit aim is to gerrymander Republican representatives out of their seats.
“This is being called the Empowering Voters to Stop Trump’s Power Grab. Every other candidate has answered this question. This is not argumentative,” Watts said. “The question is: what do you say to the 40% of voters who voted for Trump… And we’ve also asked the other candidates this: do you think you need any of those 40% of California voters to win, and you’re saying no, you don’t.”
“No, I’m saying I’m going to try to win every vote I can. And what I’m saying to you is that…” Porter trailed off. She did not finish her sentence and instead started shaking her head in silence, perhaps because she realizes it contradicts her earlier claim that she does not need Trump voters to win.
Watts then attempted to continue the conversation, to which Porter responded by turning away and saying “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it. Thank you.”
“You’re not going to do the interview?” Watts asked.
“Nope, not like this I’m not. Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.”
“Every other candidate has answered—” Watts began to say, but she was interrupted once more.
“I don’t care,” said Porter. “I don’t care.” She again repeated her apprehension to receiving follow-up questions.
“Miss Porter, I am an investigate reporter,” Watts began. Again, Porter spoke over her.
“I have never had to do this before,” Porter interjected. “Ever.”
“You’ve never had to have a conversation with a reporter?” Watts asks.
“To end an interview,” Porter clarified.
“Okay, but every other candidate has done this.”
“What part of…” Porter said before trailing off again. “I’m me. I’m running for governor because I’m a leader.”
“So you’re not going to answer questions from reporters?” asked Watts. She then offered to continue going through the interview, allowing Porter to skip over questions that she would prefer not to answer. Before she could ask the first question, Porter stated that she “did not want to have an unhappy experience with [Watson]” and that she did not “want this all on camera.”
“I don’t want to have an unhappy experience with you either. I would love to continue to ask these questions so that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels about every one of these issues that they care about,” Watts responded. “And redistricting is a massive issue. We’re going to do an entire story just on responses to that question.”
The contrast between Watt’s and Porter’s behavior could not have been starker.
What’s particularly interesting about the video is that reactions reflect a rare show of bipartisan agreement. On both sides of the political spectrum, this is widely being called a nail in the coffin for Porter’s gubernatorial ambitions. And, even more interesting, that seems to be that the criticism is—for once—even more loudly trumpeted by prominent voices on the Left than from Porter’s usual opponents on the Right.
“I’m not interested in excluding any vote,” said Democrat gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra in response to Porter’s comments. “Every Californian deserves affordable health care, safe streets, a roof over their head and a living wage.”
“We need a leader who will solve hard problems and answer simple questions,” said Antonio Villaraigosa, another one of Porter’s Democrat challengers.
Yet another Democrat in the running, Betty Yee, released a statement calling Porter a “weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”
“If she’s rattled by reporters, she’ll be crushed by responsibility. If she can’t take the heat of a few simple questions, she won’t be able to withstand the fire in a real crisis. And if she can’t be accountable for her own positions, she can’t bring needed accountability toCalifornia government,” said Yee.
But, of course, the Right is having their fun with Porter’s meltdown too.
“It’s absolutely amazing, this Katie Porter interview,” said Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for Governor. “For 15 years, Democrats have run this state into the ground. We’ve got the highest poverty, the highest taxes, the highest gas prices—it’s a disaster. And they can’t withstand the most basic questions. They totally crumble.”
What could have been an ordinary policy discussion instead became a campaign-defining misstep which may very well have just cost Katie Porter the governorship.
As if the day could not possibly get worse for Porter and her campaign team, less than 24 hours after her disastrous CBS California interview, a new video surfaced showing her cursing angrily at a campaign staffer. This was, of course, edited out in the version uploaded by former U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm back in July 2021.
“Get out of my fucking shot!” Porter shouts.
Porter hasn’t said a word publicly or posted online since the back-to-back controversies—and subsequent national headlines—first surfaced. If you needed confirmation that the campaign is in panic mode, this might be it.
Add Comment