For Dems who are pleased at the turnout numbers so far, I have some bad news for you.
I’m not saying that Gavin Newsom is going to be recalled — a new Public Policy Institute of California poll out says that the recall is losing by 39% to 58%, so that’s good, if true, but another poll covering almost the same period had the race almost even, and the difference seems to lie in the “secret sauce” of how the determine who is a likely voter.
I am saying that people who think that it’s going well because of the returned ballot statistics seem to have no idea how statistical sampling works.
Political Data, Inc. (PDI) has a daily ballot tracker. (Try it out! It’s fun!) Today I saw Democrats online gloating about how the ballot returns were going so well! So I looked it up. I have the data for I believe September 1, but it’s not going to change much soon. I’ll summarize if for you here.
- Voters were sent a total of 22,254,210 ballots this year.
- Of those, 4,657.495 have been returned. That’s 21% turnout so far.
- Do some math: you’ll see that 17,596,736 ballots remain unreturned.
Question: are there are any differences between the 4.66 million voters who have returned their ballots and the 17.6 million who haven’t? Well, obviously, some of the latter category won’t vote at all … but given that we see 70% turnout in the 2003 recall I think it’s a fair bet that more than 30% of that 70% — that is, 21% — will vote. Probably, quite a bit more will.
Now what got Democrats all fired up is this breakdown by party:
- Democrats received 10,353,101 of those ballots; 2,500,798 — or 24.155% — have been returned.
- Republicans received 5,349,192 of those ballots; 1,034,119 — or 19.332% — have been returned.
- NPPs and third party voters received 6,551,917 of those ballots; 1,034,119 — or 15.783% — have been returned.
So: Dems are winning — right? If you do the math, you’ll see that 53.7% of the ballots that have been turned in come from Democrats! They can’t lose, right?
Well … I think it’s fair to say that the recall would lose if the votes were counted today — but that’s not how it works. Lots of ballots will still arrive. And can you think of any differences between how hard the people in the various parties have been pushed to vote already?
Democrats have been hounded by a thundering and merciless party to get in their ballots as fast as they can! Don’t think about the election Part 2 to choose a replacement if the recall passes; don’t even fill it out! It is (as California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks actually said) a waste of people’s time and effort to fill out Part 2! “VOTE NO AND GO! YOU MUST DO IT TODAAAY!“
Now, by definition, any Democrat who didn’t turn in their ballot early enough for it already to have been included in their party’s figures is someone who didn’t follow their party’s desperately urgent instructions! (Now, maybe they had Covid or something, but most people just … didn’t, even if they knew that it was asked demanded of them.) People who did accede to that request are “the low-hanging fruit.” So from now on, we’re looking at mainly higher-hanging fruit, which requires more energy and cost for Democrats to reach.
Republicans and Independents (&c), on the other hand, have a reason not to have turned in their ballots yet: many of them still have to figure out whom to vote for in Part 2! Furthermore, their parties (or lack of one, for NPPs) haven’t been pushing them to vote NOW NOW NOW!)
So … of course a lower proportion of them have voted!
But will they vote?
NPPs will probably vote at their normal rate in an election for Governor — which, with good reason, they consider to be. (Libertarians may have already voted for their candidate, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Hewitt, and Greens have just endorsed brilliant and somewhat quirky Hollywood attorney Dan Kapelovitz, so their party faithful may be able to vote earlier.) But if they’ve seen the hard-squeeze tactics of the Democratic Party up close, they’ll probably be less likely to oppose the recall than otherwise, because if you’re not within the party you may not get how unappealing it is.
Republicans, on the other hand, are seriously fired up. “Stop the Republican Steal!” (as opposed to something even truer, like “Stop the Power Grab!”) surely does appeal to the extremely motivated party faithful, but it also drives up the numbers for the Republicans, who say “My God, we can actually win this one!” They have no reason to hurry, because they’ve got a fair enough amount of room for change among their leading candidates — Larry “Mr. Scandal” Elder, John “Mr. Lawsuit” Cox, Kevin “The Kid” Kiley, Kevin “Mayor Moderate” Faulconer, Kevin “I’m Actually a Democrat, But…” Paffrath, Kevin “Actually, No One is Voting for Me Except by Mistake” Kaul, and Caitlin “What Do You Mean I’m Not Famous Enough?” Jenner — that they have reason to take time to make their final decisions.
In other words, the 21% of the electorate that has already of voted looks quite different from the next 21% that will come in — any even more different from the 21% (or whatever it will turn out to be) that comes in after that.
Before moving on, PRI has some demographic breakdowns of who’s voted that we should read into the record.
Age cohorts: Of voters 65 and up, 37% have voted. Of voters 50-64, 23%. Voters 35-49, 16%. And voters 18-34%, 10%.
Race and ethnicity: White and other, 25%. Latino, 13%. Asian, 20%. Black, 20%. (By the way, 20% of the registered Black vote is 144,089 people, so good job on that effort to register minorities, Democrats! That’s almost exactly the population of Fullerton!)
I think that you can follow who’s whom in these three graphs from PRI that show trends for each of the above:
In other words, Democrats (and older voters, and whites) came out with a big lead over the first half of the race. But now — votes for everyone in every party ID and demographic category is pretty much flat. My guess is that the trend for Republican voters over the next two weeks will be a lot steeper — especially at the end, than it will for Democrats — because lots of Republican low-hanging fruit is still out there, while the Democrats’ low-hanging fruit is was used up by about a week ago.
Some of my Democratic friends (well, at least they’re still Facebook friends) are still putting lots of effort into GOTV (and maybe they’ll make the difference!), so maybe Newsom will win. But as a Democrat, I have to say: those who really wants to see Newsom remain in office have probably mostly already voted. Their votes are in the bank. If Democrats really want to electrify turnout (and blunt Republican turnout), they could do what I’ve been trying to do, and what most of them would never have the guts to do: convince Gavin Newsom to resign. Let Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis take over (the recall would continue, only with her in the hot seat) and ride both the wave of excitement over finally having a female Governor and the wave of recrimination that she certainly doesn’t deserve to be recalled over Newsom having eaten at the French Laundry!
But while this would work — and, I think, make future recalls of Governors less likely in the future, because the recall effort would have gotten the Governor’s scalp, it would also show how easily a future recall it can be overcome — Democrats won’t try it. They’d rather lose to Elder than risk losing esteem among the members of the party.
I think that that’s too bad — but that’s the party I know.
Update, 8/3: Republican and
I’m a Dem, and I voted for and I liked what Newsom was about – until I found out about the Poseidon connections (I hate this about him), and the stupid, irresponsible French Laundry episode (what a HUGE mistake)…..I keep coming back to this blog to try to help myself figure out what to do with my (still on my desk) ballot…..
Of course I’m voting NO to the recall, but I still do not know what to do about question #2. Do I leave it blank – seems like a risk? Do I pick the next best or least worst Dem – seems super risky? Do I pick the least worst Repug – yikes this is scary? How do or what do we do to get Gov. Frenchy-poo to resign (to save us!) and will this really save us and REALLY put Eleni in his place…….????
What is OUR strategy!?!?!?
I’ll wait to vote until Election Day or shortly before.
If you read this blog, you probably know that I think that the Part 2 vote is easy. I’ll vote for a Green candidate, Dan Kapelovitz, who is anti-recall and a Berniecrat, and sharp and experienced enough to govern if need be. While I’d love fir him to be able to win, or at least beat out Kevin Paffrath, I see this vote as an opportunity to say “this is the kind of candidate I like.”
I don’t think that we’ll get Newsom to resign, though I think that the reasoning behind using Eleni to rake in votes after Labor Day is sound. The problem is that this would require Newsom to sacrifice for the good of the party and the people — and he just won’t. He cares about HIM staying in office — and if he can’t have that, then from his perspective the people deserve whatever Republican jerk wins.
The point now is to do, and publicly seek, what’s right. If Newsom wins, he’ll strut around and crow that his strategy worked — when in fact it endangered the state, allowed Elder to become a prominent future political option, and through its heavy-handedness further alienated voters from the party.
You and Vern have stated to others you are yes on recall. Fuck both of you
And you are a douchebag chickenshit anonymous coward liar. I have always said I’m against the recall. I even put up an anti-recall ad on this blog’s sidebar, which your blind ass must not have noticed.
The only thing I’ve ruled out is voting yes. But it does succeed, the tears of loser ninja assassins like you will be some consolation?
Did you read my discussion of how Eleni may be able to void the replacement vote with a lawsuit based on the CA Constitution? Probably not; too hard to think beyond what you’ve been told to think.
The Republican Party has dissolved into a collection of useless, crackpot cretins. To participate in this farce is to reward people who can’t win an election but can afford to pay signature gatherers/carneys.
On the other hand, Newsom is an obnoxious, philandering, socialite hypocritical douchebag.
Theater meet Absurd.
Meet 2021.
Unfortunately, “a pox on both your houses” is not on the ballot. Who do you like in Part 2?
It’s disgusting to think that ANY ‘liberal’ would be for or at least not repulsed by a free and fair election being overturned by the idiocy and undemocratic impulses of an angry minority of a minority electorate.
Greg, you’re living proof of of how extremists from either side begin to resemble each other.
I’m sorry to have to start out my reply to you this way, Jeanette, but ARE YOU STUPID?
Are you just playing stupid to be a troll? Did someone send you here with instructions to “stupid the place up a bit”?
One question I don’t have to ask you is: “have you actually read what I’ve written?” Obviously, with a few exceptions, you have not — or you’re either stupid (see above) or lying.
To set the record straight AGAIN: I am not “for” the recall. I will either vote NO or abstain — and I won’t decide which until pretty much the end.
I am actually VERY repulsed by the use of the recall for purely political reasons — and I have written so here and elsewhere many times. But I don’t blame them for taking advantage of a stupidly crafted law — a law that Democrats could clarified or modified several times — that allows them to do this, and I have have the same contempt for people who think that it’s wrong for Newsom to get maybe four times as many votes as Elder and still lose the Governorship as I do for Hillary supporters who said that it was wrong for Hillary to lose the Presidency when she got three million more votes for Trump: in both cases, THAT’S THE LAW! What recall proponents is far less immoral than what Texas and Georgia and other states that are restricting ballot access are doing, because they’re changing the law rather than just taking advantage of what’s there.
I’ve also argued here several times that Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis should have already brought a lawsuit to clarify that the replacement race for Governor is unconstitutional because SHE was elected in 2018 to replace the Governor if he vacated the office both temporarily and permanently. Why hasn’t she already brought such a lawsuit? (Surely she knows the rules!) It’s because GAVIN NEWSOM DOESN’T WANT HER TO — because Newsom is afraid that if people think that the seat will stay in Democratic hands, they’ll have less reason to be panicked enough to save HIS ass and keep HIM in power.
As I’ve written many times, Newsom wants the alternative to his retention to be an absolute apocalypse, because he apparently thinks that he can only be retained as “the lesser of two evils.” That’s why he didn’t let any qualified Democrat run in the Part 2 race. That’s why the Democrats are demanding that people not vote in the Part 2 race — because they WANT the alternative to be a disaster!
All of this — Newsom believes — benefits Newsom, even if is to the obvious detriment of the Party and the public, because Newsom could lose. (I think he’s totally wrong that denying the public a safety net helps him, because having candidates to vote for in Part 2 brings people out to the polls — something that Republicans understand (and which explains their strategy of running umpteen candidates.)
And if Newsom himself loses, but Eleni becomes Governor, it doesn’t do much to encourage Republicans to continue to have these purely political recalls. Only if a Republican wins the Governorship does it encourage them to try this every chance they get. And — thanks to Newsom — that is exactly the risk we are taking this month!
THAT is why I may abstain. I don’t want the recall to win, and I definitely don’t want Larry Elder as Governor. But I am also completely repulsed by Newsom’s horrendously selfish and unnecessarily risky strategy here. If I vote YES on the recall, it simply validates him — and (as he cares about) burnishes his credentials to run for President. He doesn’t deserve to be validates, even if he wins the race — he deserves to be (metaphorically) keel-hauled. He’ll always be the guy who gambled the welfare of the state to win personal glory, and for the satisfaction of getting all sorts of campaign workers to devote months to GOTV and of the broader public to have to dance to his tune and be the obedient thralls that he and the party have always really wanted.
I find it VERY DIFFICULT to have my vote taken as approbation of what he and the party have done here. But I’m still thinking it over. If he’d kindly just resign, or if I can get him 20 people who were planning on obediently skipping Part 2 to instead vote for Green Berniecrat Dan Kapelovitz (who himself, unlike Kevin Paffrath), is opposed to the recall — then I’m inclined to vote NO. That’s enough to qualify as my protest.
Now that you know where I stand, try not to misrepresent my views.
P.S. And yes, his hypocrisy at the French Laundry before last Thanksgiving did almost surely cost lives, by weakening social norms related to public health — but, if there’s an afterlife, he’ll just have to answer for it there.
Really, after posting MULTIPLE TIMES that you think that Governor Newsom should resign, you’re going to PRETEND that you’re against or repulsed by the recall?
What LAW has Newsom broken?
That and that alone should be the ONLY standard for a recall and not your made-up ‘causation, with-out ANY proof’ BS!
He should resign SO THAT ELENI CAN DEFEAT THE RECALL, WHICH HE THINKS HE CAN’T DO WITHOUT TORTURING PEOPLE.
This is a very practical question of how to get the high-hanging fruit to come out to vote. Did you read the story? The people who were willing to give in to the Democratic “NO AND GO” hard sell have already voted! How does he think he’s going to get the rest out over the next 12 days?
Now he won’t do it, because polls show his position improving — which means that I have no compelling reason to vote No to save his butt — but if the race is still in doubt than I think that the way to shake up the race and pique the public interest is (1) for him to resign (“HUH?”) in favor of California’s first-ever female Governor (“WOW!”) who is entirely blameless when it comes to the acts and omissions that supposedly justify the recall, so recalling her seems patently unfair.
I take this position for the same reason that the Newsom rejects it: I care 0% about Newsom, 10% about the Party, and 90% about the Democratic electorate that the Party pretends to represent. Newsom cares 100% about Newsom, or we’d have one or two good Democrats running — who would win and make the Republicans looks like idiots.
Wrong, as usual. Liberals are always doing this.
The legal system is supposed to address law-breakers. The Recall process in California is there to get rid of anybody the electorate decides it doesn’t like. Therefore it is technically impossible to abuse it. No “proof” of any kind is required.
If you don’t like it, get your friends together and change the State Constitution.
You’re right that there is no legal standard in CA for a recall, but one would hope that the electorate would have a standard … as in malfeasance, but we’re at the mercy of an angry, uniformed minority.
The fact that this is perfectly legal doesn’t make it right and doesn’t preclude it from being abusive.
Conservatives in this country have embraced anti-democratic and hate-driven policies … a lot of it justified by cynical, anti-government views like yours. Congrats.
As for the recall, anyway you slice it … it’s wrong and an abuse of democratic principles.
Malfeasance is by definition a crime. Don’t you get it? Maybe you mean something else.
You keep asking for “proof” of something. None is needed.
Just say something like: The Recall process in California needs to be changed because the guy I like is subject to it. There’s no right or wrong about it.
I think that a recall is ethically wrong when it creates a special election that everyone knows will likely have a much lower turnout (though this time maybe not!) — but it’s hard to make a case *in California* that that’s due to vote suppression, as it would be in most states, so it’s much less unethical.
Yes, malfeasance should be the standard. It should be malfeasance, not disagreements.
Unfortunately, in California we have a very lax recall process where a minority of a minority party can get enough signatures to trigger a very, expensive and needless recall election based on nothing more than the fact that they lost.
Greg keeps calling for Newsom to resign, but why should he?
He’s done nothing to merit a recall and to resign would be to capitulate to an angry, ignorant, undemocratic minority.
Yes, the CA recall process needs to be revised, but everyone who values democracy needs to vote against this ridiculous recall now.
I’ll take these points (and then the ones in your other posts) in order.
(1) If Dems wanted malfeasance to be the standard, they’ve had over 10 years now with supermajorities with a Governor and supermajorities in both houses. Why haven’t they tried to change it? They could have easily put up a referendum and had the unions fund it until it popped.
(2) The signature requirement is pretty burdensome, actually. Yes, it’s expensive — but would that have stopped you if we could have had a national recall to get rid of Trump? “Needless” is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to agree with you that the charges are mostly just a cover-up for a political putsch — but that’s not the current legal standard, so it’s pointless (unless you’re trying to make people laugh) to complain about it.
(3) Newsom should resign out of love for his state, love for his party, and love for the people of his state. The votes of whoever will follow instructions are already in. If there’s no doubt that he will win, then you’re just being obnoxious by demanding that everyone do what you order — it’s an rotten way to try to win over voters and Democrats will pay a price for it someday. If there is doubt over who will win, then she’s obviously run out of luck and charm — and a fresh face, especially a woman who doesn’t DESERVE to be recalled — is the way to turn out the pro-Democratic vote.
But he won’t do it. He’d rather risk a disaster than make a sacrifice. His making a sacrifice is the sort of thing that could really ward off another political recall — because it would show how easy one is to beat.
(4) Remember that we could have EASILY beaten this recall by running one prominent and qualified Hillary-supporter and one prominent and qualified Bernie supporter and let them have a friendly intramural electoral scrimmage that would get Democratic voters out to represent for their side. And it probably would have ensured that Newsom was retained, too. Why didn’t we do that? Because Newsom didn’t want us to, because it would cause weakness. THAT is one reason why he should resign: he didn’t cause the recall, but he caused the selfish and screwy response to it. Pulling the rug out from under the minority is nor capitulating to them; it’s making them look like dunderheads. Except that this time, WE decided to be the BIGGER dunderheads and risk a calamity!
(5) I’m still thinking about it, and may still be thinking about it when I’m in line exactly seven days to the minute from now — it’s 7:40 on the Tuesday before the recall as I write this — waiting to cast my vote. On the one hand, I do not like a purely partisan recall, even though I recognize their right to do it, and I would never vote for it in the absence of greater malfeasance than setting an awful example about adhering to his own Covid public health compliance — and at the worst possible time, just before Thanksgiving. (But, we all know that that’s not really what it’s about.)
On the other hand, Newsom has let his arrogance and ambition run away with him and forced the party to block any decent alternatives to voting for him. I don’t like being manipulated — especially by true assholes, and especially if the stakes are this high — in that way. So right now, voting for the recall — unless a countervailing good can come with it — violates my integrity. I may cast a “protest abstention” in Part 1, while voting in Part 2. (Tit for tat!)
I might feel differently if the race were turning towards an Elder victory. But that might be the sort of failure that would open up people’s eyes to the disgusting and (in that event) failed strategies of our party leaders. We’ll see.
Anyway, Jeannette, unlike our “leaders” I am trying to cause Larry Elder to get a smaller proportion of the recall vote by urging people for Green Berniecrat Dan Kapelovitz. Don’t you want him to have a smaller vote share — even though that’s almost as meaningless as bragging about getting more votes while losing the Electoral College? Try to get me 20 voters to pledge to vote for Kapelovitz in Part 2 and I PROMISE you that if I am alive and able to mark a ballot and sign an envelope I will vote NO on the recall a week from now.
Otherwise, you’re the one who’s failing to garner another vote — for an extremely cheap price of 20 marks on a ballot!
No, malfeasance shouldn’t be the standard. The standard “should be” anything enough recall petitioners think it should be. You keep bitching about an Article of the State’s Constitution. Change it if you can, and quit crying about unfairness and having criminal activity as a threshold for recall.
Or you could elect Governors less likely to attract the opprobrium of millions of Californians once they get elected.
I do love how the cost of a recall turns liberals into fiscal budget hawks, but don’t seem to care about wasting money anyplace else.
I’m not sure why you’re so incensed by the idea that Newsom should quit. It was never a remote possibility. It seems like a waste of your valuable energy.
Obviously you can’t answer the simple question; What law has Newsom broken?
I get it … you dislike Newsom, but that doesn’t mean he should have to resign in the face-of a clearly undemocratic and abusive recall.
Democrats and those that ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY need to stand up against this BS.
It’s right vs wrong … no long-winded, (unreadable) manifestos needed.
To my knowledge, he has not broken any law (unless his action prior to the French Laundry trip had the force of law, which I really don’t remember.
I don’t believe that breaking of a law is required for a recall and I am positive that it is not required for him to resign.
He should resign because he has created a situation by his *response* to the recall where it can potentially win and he potentially can’t stop it, while Eleni might.
He should resign for the good of the party and the people. It’s bad luck, sure, but he’s overdue for a little of it.
I’m sorry, by the way, if you can’t read that well.
You know and I know that Newsom has not been accused of any malfeasance.
I get that the French Laundry episode was a mistake, but it was a minor mistake (the space was advertised as ‘outdoors’ and I’m sure an aid approved it) at a time that most of us were adjusting to a new reality.
He was pilloried in the press for it, but almost all of the outrage was from Republicans. The same Republicans that had no problem with the head of their party holding multiple super-spreader events … in other words, it was a purely opportunistic, hypocritical, partisan attack.
What I find disturbing is that because you dislike Newsom, you’re willing to join Republicans in trying to force out a democratically elected Governor by demanding he resign using a minor incident as justification for that position.
This makes me fume. The French Laundry episode was not a MISTAKE, it was a BRIBE! Not a bribe FROM Newsom, but BY Newsom! A powerful lobbyist wanted to demonstrate the scope of his power by ensuring that EVEN THE GOVERNOR would show up to eat at a restaurant with him at his birthday party. And Newsom — desirous of the lobbyist’s help in future elections — SHOWED UP! He may have said since that it was a mistake — but talk (especially from a politician like him) is cheap. And it gave a talking point — AND STILL DOES! — to people who believe that public health policy is just a way for elites to make hoi polloi dance to their tune.
I assure that that not all of the rage about what he did was from Republicans. It came from public health professionals, teachers whose lives are at stake, and anyone else who doesn’t want people to die of delusions. It was not a “minor” thing; though it might be excusable given actual contrition.
Yes Trump was worse; yes, Trumpublicans wrongly give him a pass for it. Do either of these really bear repetition anymore?
What I find disturbing is that even though I explain myself over and over again — I don’t dislike Newsom as much as I do Elder, if I were joining them I would vote Yes on the Recall which I have never planned to do, and I want him to resign because HE SCREWED UP AS A PARTY LEADER and put us all in jeopardy for his own selfish gain — it doesn’t seem to sink in even as far as your scalp, let alone your brain.
If the recall succeeds, you’ll blame me but not Newsome, right? What craziness!
Please, outline and provide proof of the “bribe” as I can’t find an article anywhere describing the birthday party as a “bribe”. What exactly was the ‘quid pro quo’?
Yes, some of the people at the dinner party were lobbyists, but they were also long time friends of the Governor.
If we want to hold Democrats to one standard (no associating with rich people, no lobbyists, no corporate donors) while Republicans flaunt those standards we might as well throw in the towel now.
Yes, these were Medical Lobbyists, but Newsom’s record on providing access to healthcare for the poor is particularly good … that’s why I’m having such a hard time understanding your beef.
Lobbyist who has been helpful to Newsom told Newsom that he wanted Newsom to attend his birthday party, notwithstanding public health.
Newsom says to hell with public health, useful lobbyist, and I hope you’ll be there for me in my re-election campaign (and the Presidential campaign following it), and attends, boosting lobbyist’s cred.
Normally, I’d call this shameless and disgusting, rather than a bribe. But in my opinion, the blatant violation of his own public health, in the lead-up to Thanksgiving, raises it to the moral equivalent of a bribe.
Could I win a conviction for bribery from either of them? No — the law is slippery enough to allow this sort of quid pro quo. Is it an exchange of money for special favors? I’d say so. And if the favors are improper, it becomes — at least colloquially — a bribe.
Wow JW……
Wianecki don’t you take yourself back in to reread Greg’s articles?
I think you’ve maybe missed a point or 2 (or many). Right now as Dems we are forced in between a rock and a hard place. The People have already spoken, so we should NOT be having a recall – at all – but here we are. It stinks.
Greg has said (more than once) that Newsom has not (to our knowledge) broken any law. As I see it, Greg is just sharing his opinion AND interesting points to ponder OR best case vs. worst case scenarios now that we find ourselves here.
I think we can all agree we sure as hell don’t want SMelder in this position of power, nor any of these crack-pot Repugs on this ticket. But again, here we are – sweating it out!
I disagree, we’re not “between a rock and hard place”, we’re standing against an undemocratic minority who want to overturn the last election merely because they lost.
If the Democrats stand together and just vote NO, we should be okay.
If Newsom were to resign, what would that signal to Republicans?
Clearly, they would learn that all they had to do when they lost an election was to force a recall, thereby handicapping ALL Democratic Governors from CA. and ruining any of their future political prospects.
That’s BS.
And they would not stand a chance were it not for Newsom’s lame-brained and ham-fisted countermeasures.
What a Newsom resignation would signal to Republicans is that they can spend all of that money and effort on statewide recalls as much as they want — but that a party reacts to them intelligently will always be able to use jiu-jutsu to defeat them. And he’d just run again in 2022 anyway.
David Zenger “Or you could elect Governors less likely to attract the opprobrium of millions of Californians once they get elected.”
What that really means …. is ANY Governor with a D behind their name.
Republicans no longer even make a pretense of caring about democracy, they started talking recall almost as soon as Newsom was elected and achieved it without …. “millions”.
This recall has very little to do with Newsom’s record and everything to do with an angry, ignorant conservative minority wanting to force their will on the majority by abusing processes that unfortunately, are too lax.
If the trump-era taught us anything, it’s that we can’t rely on people respecting ‘norms’, we have to codify them. So, I do hope that California’s recall process is amended because if it isn’t … this wasteful, undemocratic BS will become the ‘norm’.
Actually, I agree with you about all of this except one thing: it does have to do with Newsom’s record: the admirable part of it when, for a time, he really did serve public health with his orders and advisories, including closures, mandates, and tiers. (Sadly, those days of active protection are pretty much over.)
Zenger and I disagree about a lot, but you’ll find him worth listening to. I recall him telling me, years ago, that “unions controlled the Democratic Party” — and I gave him a knee-jerk “oh no they do not!” Turns out they do. Can’t say I wasn’t warned.
“Lobbyist who has been helpful to Newsom told Newsom that he wanted Newsom to attend his birthday party, notwithstanding public health.”
Newsom has been FRIENDS with these people for over twenty years, you’re becoming just like the conservatives … twisting facts to fit the narrative. And again the space was advertised as “outdoors” which would’ve conformed to the Governor’s restrictions.
He also profusely, apologized for the dinner; ““I want to apologize to you because I need to preach and practice, not just preach and not practice, and I’ve done my best to do that,” Newsom said. “We’re all human. We all fall short sometimes.”
Get a grip!
“Zenger and I disagree about a lot, but you’ll find him worth listening to.”
Sorry, but even a stopped clock is correct once a day and Zenger is definitely a “stopped clock”, but beyond that he also seems to be a bit of a sexist dick.
“You keep bitching” “quit crying ” ” It seems like a waste of your valuable energy.”
All that, when I’ve posted a few hundred words on the subject compared to your thousands and thousands of words on the recall.
Where is Zenger on YOUR “valuable energy”?
Well, one of us is certainly emulating a Trump supporter, but I’m afraid that it’s you. Newsom has clearly become your Trumpian “Dear Leader.”
(1) “Newsom has been FRIENDS with these people for over twenty years.”
SO WHAT? Thanksgiving was imminent, and our state’s public health officials were trying, with what they thought was Newsom’s help, to discouraging people from traveling to see relatives and from being in close proximity with them, especially maskless, especially when dining out. (Yes, they were supposedly on a patio — but that either still violated his order or it didn’t, and the consensus seems to be that it did. And if it wasn’t on a patio as advertised, Newsom could have turned around and gone home — or used his clout to demand to be seated on the patio.)
Don’t you think that the NON-rich-and-powerful also had friends of twenty years — and family of much longer! — that they wanted to see? Don’t you think that their bonds were even stronger and more legitimate than that between a powerful politician who wanted to boost People were being asked to make a difficult sacrifice for the public good — and Newsom just brushed it off and exempted himself; he didn’t even acknowledge it until he had to after it was leaked to the press. Should he have acknowledged it? Should he have lied about it if no one had proof? We — or at least you — have entered into “defending Trump” territory here, and that it’s defending a Dem doesn’t make a moral difference.
(2) “He profusely apologized for the dinner.”
Are you joking? “I want to apologize to you because I need to preach and practice, not just preach and not practice, and I’ve done my best to do that. … We’re all human. We all fall short sometimes” is only barely even a perfunctory apology. Everything in what you quote is either a lie, a distraction, or a justification. Let’s take it apart.
(a) He clearly didn’t want to apologize to the people of California. That’s evident in its late timing, its diffidence, and in it’s not actually being apologetic.
(b) He’s right that he needs to practice what he preaches — especially in this sort of instance. But his claiming that he’s “done his best to do that” is either a flat-out lie or an admission that he has absolutely no ability to resist to urge to come running when a powerful lobbyist calls. (Which do you think it is? Which would be worse?)
(c) Saying that “we’re all human; we all fall short sometimes” is a justification for his action, not an apology. Worse, he implicates everyone else as being no better than him! Well, I’ve never caused the death of people by failing to show adherence to my own public health orders just before people were deciding whether to honor them during Thanksgiving, so while I’m sure that I fall short sometimes ethically the notion that every infraction is the same, rather than some being greater in extent and more consequential, is disgusting.
As for your reply to Zenger, his being a sexist dick (or not, if he chooses to deny it) is not relevant to our evaluation of Newsom. I still don’t want him to be recalled, but I would like to see him censured by the legislature for what he did. (I won’t hold my breath for that.)
“Well, one of us is certainly emulating a Trump supporter, but I’m afraid that it’s you. Newsom has clearly become your Trumpian “Dear Leader.”
I’ve not done any cheerleading for Newsom, I’ve come out against the recall based on my belief that it’s an abuse of the democratic process and I’ve disputed your over-the-top, completely unsubstantiated allegations that the French Laundry dinner was an earth-shattering, Covid-exploding event … I think your animus towards Newsom is clouding your judgement.
” is only barely even a perfunctory apology.”
I posted just one of multiple apologies from Governor Newsom.
For someone who’s spewed so much verbiage on the subject you should be aware of that fact … or is that willful ignorance on your part?
“Don’t you think that the NON-rich-and-powerful also had friends of twenty years — and family of much longer!”
Of course, but you’re the one that has made the accusation that it was a “bribe” without providing any evidence to back it up … when it could’ve been just a birthday dinner for a longtime friend. Again, where’s the quid pro quo?
The Repubs couldn’t have gotten traction with those signatures without an attractive target. They never tried to recall Jerry Brown, did they?
Anyhoo, I have no intention of debating the merits of the recall, but rather to continue to insist that the process is just as valid as it can be – per the State Constitution. The Dems have the votes to put reform of the Recall law on the ballot. They can do that anytime they want. So there’s that for you to think about.
Well one, Jerry Brown didn’t have to deal with the pandemic and two, the Republican Party has gotten even crazier in the last few years.
I hope the recall process is amended, but until then anyone who cares about democracy and California should be one hundred percent against this recall.
Are you sure that if Newsom resigns, then the recall moves forward as a recall of Kounalakis? Question 1 reads, “ Shall GAVIN NEWSOM be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?” I’d think that if Newsom resigns, the recall election becomes moot; Kounalakis would become governor until the 2022 election.
Yes. I forget whether it’s in the Constitution or the Elections Code, but I’ve provided the relevant citation in a previous post. You can search the site for “Kounalakis” if you want, or I’ll do it when time permits.
Polls can be wrong — although it now seems that right-wingers don’t reply to them not because they’re ashamed of their views but because they have contempt for media and polling — but they’re not usually off by 14 points, which is the current lead for “retain” over “recall” in the Part 1 vote.
In terms of ballots returned by party:
Of the 22,268,780 ballots send out to voters, 7,609,850 have been returned and 14,658,930 remain — which is 34% turnout.
Democrats have turned in 4,000,077 of their 10,370,729 ballots (39%).
Republicans have turned in 1,890,241 of their 5,348,123 ballots (35%).
NPP and 3rd party voters have turned in 1,719,532 of their 6,549,928 ballots (26%).
This means that overall, the proportion by party (or not) of the 7,609,850 ballots turned in so far are: Democrats, 52.56%; Republicans, 24.84%; and NPP/3P, 22.60%.
So Democrats have fallen a bit under 53% — but not much. In person voting will tell, but the polls suggest it shouldn’t matter that much.