Aaaand, The CA recall goes down in flames

[Roxxsmom]

CA voters have rejected the recall by a 2-1 margin. This is pretty resounding and exceeds the poll projections, even with the widening poll gap in recent weeks.

It is a big relief, especially for those of us who live here, but a right-wing maniac at the helm in CA could make things unpleasant for the rest of the country too in some ways.

Of course the GOP is already making claims of fraud, which is ludicrous given the huge margin paired with state's political demographics. Claiming fraud is going to be the new normal for the GOP.

Officials Fear A New Normal As Republicans Make Baseless California Fraud Claims

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is favored to beat a recall attempt and keep his office. Still, some Republicans are already setting the stage to blame a loss on voter fraud.

www.npr.org

I fear the ultimate method behind the madness is that the GOP will attempt to meddle with a future election in a big way, but the silent majority of people will be so inured to claims of electon fraud by then that they won't take them seriously, even when they come from the Left (at least not until it's too late).

 

[ChaseJxyz]

The reason they're claiming fraud was because there was a poll early on that said things were pretty 50/50. Even earlier polls was very favorable to the recall. But "magically" they are now totally different! How could this have happened!

Totally not related or anything, but in my very small city, there is one online "newspaper" and the guy who runs it hates our high minimum wage and other such policies. During a local election, he ran a "poll" asking if they would support some sort of bill/proposition that would raise taxes or something along those lines. His poll was major NO, like 80%....he also included a heat map of where the responses were from. They were almost all from the 2 condominium communities, which are all full of really old, higher-income people. Come election day, the bill gets something like a 90% YES. Dude's an idiot and just doesn't know how to get a good sample that reflects the people who actually live here. At least he didn't claim it was fraud.

 

[Albedo]

That's a relief then. I tried to understand this recall, I did, but it didn't work. The whole electoral process sounded like a bad joke, and apparently it was. And when an Australian thinks your electoral system is overly confusing and unrepresentative to the point of satire, it might be time to change. Is there any prospect now the recall's been defeated, of changing the process?

 

[ChaseJxyz]

So it seems that only 20 states let you recall a governer. And in some states it has to be for very specific reason (like you did a Bad Crime).

Newsom is pretty liberal, he has been going super hard on the utility company that caused all those wildfires the past years and is threatening to make them a public utility. When COVID hit, he was really swift and harsh, shutting things down, mask mandates etc. This also included religious services, and some* rich Republicans didn't like that, because this is a violation of the first amendment? Even though nothing is stopping you from worshipping at home or over Zoom? So that's what got the ball rolling.

Every state has its own things, state rights is IMPORTANT here, but California has some unique things. Like for a Congressional race, there's the primary where, say, 20 people are competing, all sorts of parties and backgrounds. The 2 people with the most votes go on the final ballot. So you might get to choose between a Democrat or a Democrat. It's possible a bill can go up to vote that can change that process, but there's gotta be a good reason for it.


*by some I mean 2 or 3 specific guys

 

[Roxxsmom]

The reason they're claiming fraud was because there was a poll early on that said things were pretty 50/50. Even earlier polls was very favorable to the recall. But "magically" they are now totally different! How could this have happened!

Totally not related or anything, but in my very small city, there is one online "newspaper" and the guy who runs it hates our high minimum wage and other such policies. During a local election, he ran a "poll" asking if they would support some sort of bill/proposition that would raise taxes or something along those lines. His poll was major NO, like 80%....he also included a heat map of where the responses were from. They were almost all from the 2 condominium communities, which are all full of really old, higher-income people. Come election day, the bill gets something like a 90% YES. Dude's an idiot and just doesn't know how to get a good sample that reflects the people who actually live here. At least he didn't claim it was fraud.

The earlier polls of "likely voters "did show a much tighter race, but the gap has widened in recent weeks.

I think there are all manner of logical explanations for this. Seems that the turnout was pretty high in this election, and when registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans about 2:1, it's not surprising how the election turned out. The GOP could only win if far more Democrats stayed home.

There are also the fact that the state has opened up economically (and kids are back in school), and that it has has come through the pandemic in good fiscal shape, and covid numbers are slowly decreasing again overall. That will benefit an incumbent.

The issues that originally drove the recall effort: homelessness*, gas prices etc. just aren't huge motivating factors to most voters here.

Oh, and that little issue with the front-running candidate on the recall ballot being a highly divisive (and frankly offensive) figure with a relatively small following in the state and is in no way qualified to be governor.

I think a lot of people realized what was at stake here, and a large number of "less likely" voters turned out. The GOP was seriously counting on only the angriest Californians having much interest in the recall.

It is also the case that mail in ballots make it much easier (and safer) for all eligible people to vote. Which of course is why the GOP hates them so much.

*homelessness should matter more, of course. Sadly, members of both parties are disinclined for their tax money to go toward long-term solutions.

 

[Roxxsmom]

That's a relief then. I tried to understand this recall, I did, but it didn't work. The whole electoral process sounded like a bad joke, and apparently it was. And when an Australian thinks your electoral system is overly confusing and unrepresentative to the point of satire, it might be time to change. Is there any prospect now the recall's been defeated, of changing the process?

You won't get any argument from me. The recall system in this state is a joke, and it was a huge waste of resources and distraction from much more pressing issues. The lack of any kind of run off (in the event that no candidate gets more than 50% of the popular vote on the recall ballot) is just part of the ridiculousness of it. If the recall had gone through, we'd be swearing in a new governor who received less than half the vote of those who favored the recall (let alone those who opposed it, many of whom didn't even cast a vote for a "just in case" replacement).

I have never been clear why, in a state like ours where the Lt governor is elected separately from the governor (not part of a ticket and can even be from the opposite party), the Lt governor simply wouldn't serve out the governor's term if a recall is approved.

Or, hey, maybe people shouldn't be able toss their hat in the ring to be recall candidates until a recall is approved in the first place. I'd support having a second election to select the replacement if the recall goes through. The Lt. governor could serve as replacement in the interim (and run to be the next governor too). This would at least assure that more qualified candidates from each party would be the likeliest replacements, rather than the dog and pony show we got this time.

As the system is now, there is a lot of pressure on experienced people from the same party as the besieged governor to NOT put themselves forward as possible replacements, since they could be viewed as "disloyal" and be penalized politically if the recall fails. Indeed, the official push from the CA Democratic party was to vote no and leave the second question (who should replace him if he is recalled) blank. This system creates a definite conflict of interest and weights things in favor of the opposition party. This definitely creates an incentive for the recall of an incumbent for no good reason at all, rather than having it be reserved for cases of gross misconduct or beyond-the-pale incompetence.

Evidently our recall law is very, very old. Now is the time to do it, though, since the Democrats currently have the numbers here to pass something without any GOP support. A ballot initiative to change it may be in our future. Whether whichever group pushes for this gets a ballot initiative before voters that could actually make things more logical is up in the air, of course.

It is a huge relief that Newsom was preserved for a particular "national" reason too. Feinstein is getting pretty old, and if she cannot serve out her term, the governor will pick her replacement. Imagine the harm an Elder-picked replacement would do on the senate!

 

[Albedo]

You won't get any argument from me. The recall system in this state is a joke, and it was a huge waste of resources and distraction from much more pressing issues. The lack of any kind of run off (in the event that no candidate gets more than 50% of the popular vote on the recall ballot) is just part of the ridiculousness of it. If the recall had gone through, we'd be swearing in a new governor who received less than half the vote of those who favored the recall (let alone those who opposed it, many of whom didn't even cast a vote for a "just in case" replacement).

I have never been clear why, in a state like ours where the Lt governor is elected separately from the governor (not part of a ticket and can even be from the opposite party), the Lt governor simply wouldn't serve out the governor's term if a recall is approved.

Or, hey, maybe people shouldn't be able toss their hat in the ring to be recall candidates until a recall is approved in the first place. I'd support having a second election to select the replacement if the recall goes through. The Lt. governor could serve as replacement in the interim (and run to be the next governor too). This would at least assure that more qualified candidates from each party would be the likeliest replacements, rather than the dog and pony show we got this time.

As the system is now, there is a lot of pressure on experienced people from the same party as the besieged governor to NOT put themselves forward as possible replacements, since they could be viewed as "disloyal" and be penalized politically if the recall fails. Indeed, the official push from the CA Democratic party was to vote no and leave the second question (who should replace him if he is recalled) blank. This system creates a definite conflict of interest and weights things in favor of the opposition party. This definitely creates an incentive for the recall of an incumbent for no good reason at all, rather than having it be reserved for cases of gross misconduct or beyond-the-pale incompetence.

Evidently our recall law is very, very old. Now is the time to do it, though, since the Democrats currently have the numbers here to pass something without any GOP support. A ballot initiative to change it may be in our future. Whether whichever group pushes for this gets a ballot initiative before voters that could actually make things more logical is up in the air, of course.

It is a huge relief that Newsom was preserved for a particular "national" reason too. Feinstein is getting pretty old, and if she cannot serve out her term, the governor will pick her replacement. Imagine the harm an Elder-picked replacement would do on the senate!

Thanks for this detail! One thing I couldn't understand at all was why the Democratic party didn't nominate an official replacement in case the vote went bad. For instance, why not nominate the lieutenant governor specifically for that purpose? Party loyalty optics makes sense as an explanation, though.

 

[ChaseJxyz]

Thanks for this detail! One thing I couldn't understand at all was why the Democratic party didn't nominate an official replacement in case the vote went bad. For instance, why not nominate the lieutenant governor specifically for that purpose? Party loyalty optics makes sense as an explanation, though.

Yeah I thought that was pretty weird. Some Dems DID run (the one I picked was the guy who was very Bernie-esque). I think most Dems are happy with Newsom so they didn't feel the need to replace him.

The worry with this election was people wouldn't go out and vote because "oh I'm sure he'll win." But EVERYONE who's a voter got a mail-in ballot sent to them because of covid, and I'm sure that helped him win by such a landslide. The stimulus checks probably helped, too (still waiting on mine!!!). Those aren't things he made to curry favor, btw, there's a law stating that if the state has a large enough budget surplus, they gotta send money back to people, so that's what that is. I'm not complaining.

 

[krawriter]

I can’t believe I know people who voted yes on this nonsense. So glad to have it behind us. What a waste of time and money

 

[Roxxsmom]

Thanks for this detail! One thing I couldn't understand at all was why the Democratic party didn't nominate an official replacement in case the vote went bad. For instance, why not nominate the lieutenant governor specifically for that purpose? Party loyalty optics makes sense as an explanation, though.

Definitely, and I am guessing this is why even my teacher's union officially endorsed "no on the recall with the second question left blank."