Poll Shows Gavin Newsom In Serious Danger Of Getting Recalled

3,489 Views | 79 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by bearister
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:




Elder might attempt to emulate Newsom by wielding emergency powers, but the Legislature would immediately void them. He would be a eunuch Governor.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Legislature wouldn't get anything done either though.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


They are scared of losing.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MinotStateBeav said:

Legislature wouldn't get anything done either though.

As long as he doesn't ram through any conservative nonsense, we can live with that.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

MinotStateBeav said:

Legislature wouldn't get anything done either though.

As long as he doesn't ram through any conservative nonsense, we can live with that.
It's worse than that for conservatives. You need a 2/3 majority in each chamber to override an executive veto, which the Democrats comfortably have. Rather than having Newsom as a moderating influence on the legislature, Elder (or insert your powerless Republican alternative) wouldn't even be a part of the conversation. The legislature will pass whatever it wants and easily override the veto.

Hard to predict how it would all go down, but I would be very surprised if Republicans will be able to hold us hostage as a minority the way they do in the federal government.
prospeCt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.sfgate.com/gavin-newsom-recall/article/California-recall-laws-history-who-constitution-16397664.php

(disturbing) - https://www.sfgate.com/sfhistory/article/Church-of-Satan-8-8-88-rally-San-Francisco-Lavey-16333009.php

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom has made it clear he is not a fan of the recall laws found in the state constitution.


"All you need is about a quarter of the people that voted for Donald Trump to get this recall petition to the voters," Newsom told CNN in March.

To trigger a recall election of a statewide official, petition organizers must gather a number of signatures equal to 12% of the total votes cast in the previous election for the office of the person being recalled (in Newsom's case, approximately 1.5 million). If the recall petition qualifies and a special election is held, the targeted official can be recalled by a simple majority of voters. If that official is recalled, whichever replacement candidate on the bottom of the ballot receives the most votes will take office even if that candidate does not receive a majority of votes. Both of those provisions are in the state constitution, and require a constitutional amendment to change.

During the Newsom recall election, countless Democrats and newspaper columnists have bemoaned the latter provision, noting that it's highly possible that a candidate such as radio host Larry Elder could become the next governor of California with only 20% of the vote.

However, when California's recall laws were first added to the state constitution in 1911, few were worried about that possibility. The framers of the recall amendments had other concerns.

Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College's Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform and author of "Recall Elections: From Alexander Hamilton to Gavin Newsom," said that the concept of recalling elected officials has existed in the United States since the country's inception.

The original Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781) contained a recall mechanism, though it was never used. When the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention Convention was held 1787, James Madison's "Virginia Plan" would have allowed for the recall of members of Congress, but this provision never made it into the version of the United States Constitution first ratified in 1789.

"Then about 100 years passed with the idea of recalls going dormant," Spivak said. "The Progressive Era brought it back."

David A. Carrillo, executive director of Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center, said that after large railroad companies seized control of California politics in the late 1800s, citizens wanted recourse against the industry's undue influence over the state's elected officials. While it is generally believed that the first California law allowing for recall elections was an addition to the charter of the city of Los Angeles in 1903, Spivak said he recently uncovered evidence San Diego's charter had a provision for recalls in 1889.


As the anti-monopolist and anti-corruption fervor of the Progressive Era spread across the country, state governments also began amending their constitutions to create recall mechanisms. Oregon and Michigan were the first two states to allow for recall elections of statewide officials in 1908, and once Hiram Johnson a progressive Republican who later became Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 Progressive Party running mate was elected governor of California in 1910, he got to work on populist reforms.

"Johnson believed that the solution to government perfidy was popular government: empowering the voters to protect themselves by making their own laws and redressing abuses of power," Carrillo said in an email.

Along with progressive allies in the Legislature, Johnson added three pro-democracy reforms recalls, ballot initiatives and referendums to the California Constitution. Amending the state constitution requires two thirds of both chambers of the Legislature as well as a majority of the state's voters. Californians approved the three measures in 1911.

California's recall laws were a bit different from Oregon's and Michigan's. The latter two states had a higher signature threshold; they both required an amount of signatures equal to 25% of the total votes cast in the previous election for the office of the person being recalled, as opposed to 12%. (However, Oregon recall petitions now only require a 15% signature threshold.)

Oregon originally had the same succession protocol California currently has, where a replacement candidate only needs a plurality of votes to assume office, but Oregon has since changed that law. Today, if an Oregon governor is recalled, there is no replacement vote and the secretary of state becomes governor.

Spivak and Carrillo both said that when California's Legislature was debating the language of the recall amendment, the only real controversy centered around the issue of whether Californians should be allowed to recall judges (they ended up deciding they can) and modern day concerns related to the replacement candidate vote never came up.

"The whole, 'how is this going to work' question wasn't a big issue for them," Spivak said. "The judge question was their primary concern."


If Californians want to make any changes to the recall process, those changes will have to be done via constitutional amendment. Democrats have a supermajority in the Legislature and should theoretically have the votes to enact whichever changes they desire. If Larry Elder who is highly controversial among Democratic voters and was accused of abusive behavior by his ex-fiancee does become governor, it is not difficult to imagine more than 50% of voters in the deep blue state signing off on changes to recall laws.

Carrillo said that short of a constitutional amendment, the Legislature can make tweaks to some other aspects of the recall process that draw complaints. Most notably, they can take steps to pare down the replacement ballot.

"A major problem is the conflict between Elec. Code 11328 (recalls are conducted 'in substantially the manner provided by law for a regular election for the office') and Elec. Code 8000(a) (procedures for primary candidate elections do not apply to recalls)," he wrote in an email. "That allows the secretary of state to decide what procedures to use in a recall."

The secretary of state opted to use the primary candidate procedures in both the 2003 recall of Gray Davis and the Newsom recall decisions that led to more than 100 candidates on the ballot in 2003 and 46 this year.

"The Legislature could specify that replacements must use the general election independent candidate procedure," Carrillo wrote. "That would preclude joker candidates independents must submit the signatures of 1% of registered state voters (as of July 2020 California had 20,921,513 registered voters, which is 209,215 signatures)."

Requiring 209,215 signatures to get onto the ballot would shrink the second portion of the recall ballot considerably"




chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

chazzed said:

MinotStateBeav said:

Legislature wouldn't get anything done either though.

As long as he doesn't ram through any conservative nonsense, we can live with that.
It's worse than that for conservatives. You need a 2/3 majority in each chamber to override an executive veto, which the Democrats comfortably have. Rather than having Newsom as a moderating influence on the legislature, Elder (or insert your powerless Republican alternative) wouldn't even be a part of the conversation. The legislature will pass whatever it wants and easily override the veto.

Hard to predict how it would all go down, but I would be very surprised if Republicans will be able to hold us hostage as a minority the way they do in the federal government.

That is a better educated guess than I'm able to produce.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No chance he gets recalled. Ballot harvesting, dead folks voting and democrats counting the votes will ensure he stays..Howmany times have we seen this movie??
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Sleezy NY Times.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

No chance he gets recalled. Ballot harvesting, dead folks voting and democrats counting the votes will ensure he stays..Howmany times have we seen this movie??

The real reason there's no chance he'll get recalled is because media coverage has focused on the very real possibility that a helltopay1-like person could become governor, and that will drive people to the polls.


BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Oops.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

No chance he gets recalled. Ballot harvesting, dead folks voting and democrats counting the votes will ensure he stays..Howmany times have we seen this movie??


The Republicans can file lawsuits and see if they can better tRump's 0 for 86 Stop the Steal litigation record.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

helltopay1 said:

No chance he gets recalled. Ballot harvesting, dead folks voting and democrats counting the votes will ensure he stays..Howmany times have we seen this movie??

The real reason there's no chance he'll get recalled is because media coverage has focused on the very real possibility that a helltopay1-like person could become governor, and that will drive people to the polls.




I'm not even drunk or high right now (I swear), but I can't help but having this vision of helltopay1, only Black, assuming the job of Governor of the State of California for a year. I can't get it out of my head. I'm trippin'.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you should be very concerned w/ your day job
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


He TOTALLY could go down:

a) low turn-out by his supporters, most of whom are tepid right now
b) people who might normally be on the fence, or just not vote, see a chance to say "screw you" to power

No way it would be like this, were it not for his French Laundry dinner. One of the biggest silly political mistakes ever.

Newsome is fine, or, if he isn't, certainly not "un-fine" enough to be kicked out before his term is up.
Maybe the upshot of this will be that California gets rid of, or at least revamps this ridiculous recall thing.

I was pretty nervous about this, four weeks ago. It feels good to be wrong. Looks like the "tepid" Dem voters turned out after all. Current COVID numbers compared to a lot of the red states probably sealed the deal.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Big C said:


He TOTALLY could go down:

a) low turn-out by his supporters, most of whom are tepid right now
b) people who might normally be on the fence, or just not vote, see a chance to say "screw you" to power

No way it would be like this, were it not for his French Laundry dinner. One of the biggest silly political mistakes ever.

Newsome is fine, or, if he isn't, certainly not "un-fine" enough to be kicked out before his term is up.
Maybe the upshot of this will be that California gets rid of, or at least revamps this ridiculous recall thing.

I was pretty nervous about this, four weeks ago. It feels good to be wrong. Looks like the "tepid" Dem voters turned out after all. Current COVID numbers compared to a lot of the red states probably sealed the deal.

The prospect of Larry Elder being governor of California scared the crap out of a lot of people!

I don't know why any respectable Republican would hitch his wagon to that dude.

Trump was lightning in a bottle. A lot of his voters never had a voice in politics and he gave them that voice.

Most of us understand now why that group of voters has generally been ignored by both parties. They are bat**** crazy!

They will either drive the GOP over a cliff or back to respectability.



BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Big C said:

Big C said:


He TOTALLY could go down:

a) low turn-out by his supporters, most of whom are tepid right now
b) people who might normally be on the fence, or just not vote, see a chance to say "screw you" to power

No way it would be like this, were it not for his French Laundry dinner. One of the biggest silly political mistakes ever.

Newsome is fine, or, if he isn't, certainly not "un-fine" enough to be kicked out before his term is up.
Maybe the upshot of this will be that California gets rid of, or at least revamps this ridiculous recall thing.

I was pretty nervous about this, four weeks ago. It feels good to be wrong. Looks like the "tepid" Dem voters turned out after all. Current COVID numbers compared to a lot of the red states probably sealed the deal.

The prospect of Larry Elder being governor of California scared the crap out of a lot of people!

I don't know why any respectable Republican would hitch his wagon to that dude.

Trump was lightning in a bottle. A lot of his voters never had a voice in politics and he gave them that voice.

Most of us understand now why that group of voters has generally been ignored by both parties. They are bat**** crazy!

They will either drive the GOP over a cliff or back to respectability.




Larry Elder was a gift from Republicans who supported Captain Catastrophe and his type of politics.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Trump was lightning in a bottle. A lot of his voters never had a voice in politics and he gave them that voice.

Most of us understand now why that group of voters has generally been ignored by both parties. They are bat**** crazy!

They will either drive the GOP over a cliff or back to respectability.



Uh, yeah, they already over the cliff!!

I'm just waiting for the resounding SPLATTT!!!!!!!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The polls were close when it was still just an abstract question about whether or not you'd replace Newsom. When it became more of a choice between him and Larry Elder, they widened again.

That's the issue for Republicans and third parties here: it's not that people necessarily love the Democrats, it's that the other choices are a whole lot worse.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The polls were close when it was still just an abstract question about whether or not you'd replace Newsom. When it became more of a choice between him and Larry Elder, they widened again.

That's the issue for Republicans and third parties here: it's not that people necessarily love the Democrats, it's that the other choices are a whole lot worse.


So, it's a decision between flawed rationality (as humans are) and over the cliff insane Trumpism?
And Trumpism lost 2 to 1.

Shocking that there are still that many people over the cliff nutso.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.

I guess Democrats aren't as stupid as you think they are.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.

I guess Democrats aren't as stupid as you think they are.


No they relied on the Republicans doing an even more stupid thing
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.

I guess Democrats aren't as stupid as you think they are.
No they relied on the Republicans doing an even more stupid thing

You can count on Republicans to do stupid things!

Also, they learned from the Gray Davis recall that putting, say, Eleni Kounalakis on the ballot would just encourage more Dems to vote yes on the recall.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.
The problem is that no other candidate made a credible case that they could improve on any of those horrible things either. Elder can talk about wildfires and homelessness and cost of living, but did he actually have a credible plan to fix those problems? Any reason to think he could execute on such a plan even if he had one? Not that I can tell.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the Larry Elder factor helped, but I think it would've been the same result without him.

There really wasn't much enthusiasm for the other candidates.

I think the main takeaway is that California is dominated by Dems and that Dems are going to dominate no matter what. The governor has to be really, really bad -- like corrupt bad -- and the alternate option has to be really, really good to win.

California isn't a blue state like Maryland that'll elect a republican governor.

Newsom was also helped by how Florida and Texas have become disasters under crazy republicans. So in comparison, Gavin is doing a good job with such a big unwieldy state.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.
The problem is that no other candidate made a credible case that they could improve on any of those horrible things either. Elder can talk about wildfires and homelessness and cost of living, but did he actually have a credible plan to fix those problems? Any reason to think he could execute on such a plan even if he had one? Not that I can tell.

Also, California has fairly recent experience of a celebrity with no experience taking over a state. And then they saw it at a national level.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A lil ribbing lol on the losers


https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRxnqFC7/
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:

I thought there was no chance but seeing the ads about right wing extremists means he's nationalizing this puny thing and is in trouble.


Thanks for scaring me enough to pay attention and vote!
It worked, big time!!!

F them BS power grabbing Republicans, they just billed the state $300M. Where do we collect from them?

Oh, no, we can't collect?
We have to shortchange needed programs?

F them Republicans!!!


Come on it was fun watching that **** squirm for a while but after it became Elder vs Newsom it was no longer about Newsom but all the horrible things that would happen if he was replaced even though those horrible things are unchanged with Newsom. I thought the Dems made a mistake not putting a candidate on the replacement list but it was actually smart once it became a jihad against Elder.
The problem is that no other candidate made a credible case that they could improve on any of those horrible things either. Elder can talk about wildfires and homelessness and cost of living, but did he actually have a credible plan to fix those problems? Any reason to think he could execute on such a plan even if he had one? Not that I can tell.
The problems are the problems. They are easy to identify and are largely a result of long-term trends that have nothing to do with politics. Gavin Newsom isn't the reason we have wildfires or that we've had homeless problems for decades or that the cost of living is so high. We should amend the constitution to get rid of ballot initiatives and go from there.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This theory might not make sense because I believe I've read that a majority of white voters went with Newsom.

I think that, however, the majority of the anti-Newsomites are white and they are more likely to make noise. And the national media tends to amplify loud white people. So "unbiased" news anchors like Jake Tapper and Kasie Hunt will also amplify those voices. So the national media ends up believing that the disgruntled Trumpers, based on their outspokenness, have a big say when they don't.

going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting take

Mine is the real winner of the recall was ws.
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The polls were close when it was still just an abstract question about whether or not you'd replace Newsom. When it became more of a choice between him and Larry Elder, they widened again.

That's the issue for Republicans and third parties here: it's not that people necessarily love the Democrats, it's that the other choices are a whole lot worse.

I don't think the all registered voters polling was ever close. The likely voter screens that were then applied to get to poll projections (and these are the numbers highlighted in reporting) made it seem like Rs were super energized and Ds didn't care and thus it was going to be close. The change from a couple months ago to now isn't that people changed their minds from Yes to No but rather that people who indicated they weren't sure if they'd vote ended up voting.

There was a chance of Yes winning by keeping Ds disengaged but I don't know that there was a republican who could've swung No voters to Yes, at least not nearly enough to change the outcome.

Also, Newsom's approval ratings have been over 50% consistently from the reporting I've seen in the last few months. That plus the all registered voter polling makes it seem like CA voters want to keep Newsom more than it being a lesser of 2 evils / if only there was a better candidate election.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

sycasey said:

The polls were close when it was still just an abstract question about whether or not you'd replace Newsom. When it became more of a choice between him and Larry Elder, they widened again.

That's the issue for Republicans and third parties here: it's not that people necessarily love the Democrats, it's that the other choices are a whole lot worse.

I don't think the all registered voters polling was ever close. The likely voter screens that were then applied to get to poll projections (and these are the numbers highlighted in reporting) made it seem like Rs were super energized and Ds didn't care and thus it was going to be close. The change from a couple months ago to now isn't that people changed their minds from Yes to No but rather that people who indicated they weren't sure if they'd vote ended up voting.

There was a chance of Yes winning by keeping Ds disengaged but I don't know that there was a republican who could've swung No voters to Yes, at least not nearly enough to change the outcome.

Also, Newsom's approval ratings have been over 50% consistently from the reporting I've seen in the last few months. That plus the all registered voter polling makes it seem like CA voters want to keep Newsom more than it being a lesser of 2 evils / if only there was a better candidate election.
Yeah, I think the argument was always that maybe R's could squeak out a win if D's remained disinterested, not that Dems were actually being converted to vote R.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.