After 16 years of Republican governors, California has elected three Democrats in the past 20 years. Republicans have tried to recall two of the three.
It's time for this nonsense to end, and given the current state of the Republican Party there's no guarantee that even tonight's epic drubbing will convince them to stop. At this point, we don't need to reform the recall process, we need to eliminate it entirely. It serves no purpose that can't be accomplished by other means.
It's an interesting question why Maryland, Vermont, and Massachusetts can produce moderate GOP governors but California can't. What a message to Desantis and Abbott: enjoy your future as a radio host.
MD, VT, MA: All were first elected before Trump came to office. Wouldn't happen today.
Good point
I don't think that's true at all in the case of Massachusetts (don't know much about the other two).
I happen to think the large numbers of Bay State voters who are wiling to pull the lever for a soft and cuddly Republican are mistaken, mind you (the party of Trump should be roundly rejected). But I think there's zero question "moderate" centrist-y Republicans can continue to be competitive in Massachusetts for the foreseeable future. (Obviously the GOP has to field strong candidates, and I don't know what their current talent pipeline looks like). Also, Baker won reelection two years after Trump won—in a year that was very bad for Republicans in general.
It's not true in Vermont, either. Vermonters overwhelmingly vote Democratic in elections from the presidential to state rep, and like Mass.,voters have this idea that a moderate Republican in the governor's office makes for a better balance. Sometimes both states elect Dem. governors, sometimes Republican ones, in no particular order.
Other than the governor, the VT GOP is a freak show married to a clown show. The governor is a strong anti-Trumper, the state party consists of ardent Trumpists. It's peculiar.
Now note that Massachusetts does not have open primaries so to vote in the GOP primary you must be a party member. So Independent/Democratic support is meaningless if you don't have the support of a majority of GOP voters.
Case in point - Virginia has open primaries but the Wacko GOP in the state are now using conventions to game the system to nominate only "Real" GOP candidates. As a result they have nominated a series of statewide candidates on the fridge that have been soundly rejected by a majority of voters.
Now note that Massachusetts does not have open primaries so to vote in the GOP primary you must be a party member.
About 60% of Massachusetts voters are registered independents ("unenrolled") and they may all vote in either party's primary. So, for a majority of Bay State voters, primary elections are indeed "open." (Registered Democrats would have to change party affiliation to either GOP or independent 28 days before election).
https://mavotertable.org/voter-registration-101
MN also used to have moderate Republicans in statewide office (or, at least, they pretended moderation to get elected).
The increasing nationalization of politics has damaged this, leaving only legacy politicians who can win as moderates.
Larry Hogan won reelection in 2018, right in the middle of the Trump years. He had also made no secret of the fact that he could not stand Trump, and apart maybe from a bit of Baltimore bashing his policies were not remotely Trumpian. A Republican who puts a parsec or two of daylight between himself and the Trumpists can win election in a solidly blue state, but too few Republicans are willing to do that.
Joseph
MA is an outlier.
William Weld?
Mitt Romney?
People in MA remember Romney with great affection, so the Trump "stink" doesn't stick to him
I think that SOME folks don't want the trifecta of house, senate and governors office all being from the same party.
MA will continue to elect GOP governors so long as the legislature remains solid blue. Heck they love their liberal DEM senators but then get Scott Brown?
MA is strange in that way
The reason why isn’t hard to understand. California is the natural home of the followers of Brother John Birch. The base of the party decides who wins the primary and those people scare the hell out of between 60-75% of the population. Larry Elder is someone who can consistently win the California Republican primary. But nobody who can win the Republican primary can win a general election. It’s why there are no statewide Republican office holders.
Even in very conservative but heavily populated states, Republicans rarely win a huge majority of the vote. They rely instead on antidémocratique tricks to keep power. But that’s also why you are wrong about the future of Republican politicians. What they understand is that they don’t need to win the most votes since they are essentially going to be relying on antidémocratique factors such as gerrymandering and voter suppression or the courts to “win” elections.
Good explanation. Why do moderate Republicans win in MA and VT? Because of the lack of the core John Birch types?
Yes, I believe that’s the explanation. You have to go the full Fox News/John Birch Society to win the primary that there’s no way to get back close enough to the center to even be competitive in the general election.
If memory serves, the Republicans in Connecticut have a similar problem. The “I’m not a witch” lady was probably one of their more moderate and electable candidates.
That was Delaware, not Connecticut, Mitch. And the "I'm not a witch" lady has a name: Christine O'Donnell. You could have Wikipedia'd her and then you would have known that it was Delaware.
You normally do MUCH better than this.
You’re right. Actually I was even lazier than you think I saved the two SNL sketches about her si it was just one click away.
But, in my defense, I may have gotten the state wrong but the fact that the main thing I remember about a Republican senatorial candidate is that she’s definitely not a witch is a pretty good description of just how crazy the Republicans are and why they struggle to win statewide elections outside of Mississippi and South Dakota.
Don’t know about Maryland, but could the town-meeting tradition in New England be part of the explanation for moderate Republicanism? The national messaging of the GOP since Goldwater and Reagan has been fomenting mistrust of government*. Maybe that doesn’t go over where anyone can attend his/her town meeting and question the first selectman about anything they want. People don’t want to ‘get government off their backs’, they want government to fill the damn potholes, and plow the snow. (Hmm, maybe weather plays a role?)
*Nixon didn’t emphasize this; in fact, he promised to use government to bring ‘law and order’.
New Englanders are still desperately seeking Christopher Shays.
Schwarzenegger was a moderate Republican (probably still would be, if such a species were still viable in the wild).
In the abstract, of course, Kevin’s absolutely right. But the Democrats can’t eliminate the recall because doing so would be partisan. And the Democrats are a nonpartisan political party.
The figure I'm hearing for the cost of this fiasco is $200 million to the taxpayers. Even in California that's not nothing. Maybe Dems can repeal or change this law using that as the argument. It's epically wasteful.
Repealing the recall would be seen as political. Democrats can’t bring themselves to be political. That’s a big part of how we got here in the first place.
I don't think ppl get the humor of what you're saying.
But dark humor. Very dark.
It isn't a law. It's part of Article II of the California constitution. So, changing it is something the legislature can't do on its own. It would have to pass with a 2/3 majority in both houses, and then be ratified by the electorate as a referendum.
With the current D super-majority and utter disgust with R b.s. right now, it's quite possible.
More than possible. It would be easy to do.
At a minimum the replacement election should be eliminated for the Governor's office. California has a Lieutenant Governor, who like in every state is just waiting for the Trumpet to sound for the dearly Departed Gov.
Just advance the LG, who was independently elected; it's what she's for.
Then you’ll probably see the immediate recall of the LG too. Is there a minimum time limit for successive recall elections being scheduled, eg you can’t have another within X months of the prior one?
There is no time minimum between successive Recall petitions. They tried four previous times with Newsom in three years. The thing is that with the partisan imbalance in California, recalling the newly installed Governor would be extremely easy to attack as pure partisanship.
And in any case, the newly seated Governor (who would be the former Lieutenant Governor if this reform proceeded) has the right to appoint a new Lieutenant Governor, subject to ratification by both Houses of the Legislature. Since Democrats hold super-majorities in both Houses, such a ratification can be expected quickly.
It takes much longer to collect signatures and schedule a recall election than it does to make an appointment and get ratification, so by the time that such a second Recall came before the voters, there would already be ANOTHER Democrat in the office of Lieutenant Governor awaiting elevation.
I have to say that if this MUCH more democratic way of choosing a replacement were adopted in place of the farcically undemocratic "first-past-the-post" replacement election, there would never be another attempt to recall a Governor EXCEPT in case of real misfeasance. Given the strong Democratic tilt of the state, it makes sense to have the option for people to recall a corrupt person who might be protected by his or her partisan allies in the Legislature.
So, keep the POTENTIAL for recall of the Governor, but make it entirely about the PERFORMANCE of the Governor by removing the opportunity for a "Hail Mary pass" of a win with a tiny plurality of votes.
Maybe, but governor/LT governor don't run as a ticket in CA & we have had cross - party pairs in living memory - Schwarzeneggar period; 1st Jerry Brown period.
Wouldn't such a tandem recall be seen as a complete gimmick & unlikely to succeed? Or even inhibit qualifying both initiatives?
I agree with you. The logic behind the recall process is outdated and no longer valid. Nevertheless, the odds on the Democrats actually changing the recall in the way you suggest are extremely poor because doing so would be “political” and “partisan” and the institutional Democratic Party is “nonpartisan”.
I don't think they'll have any problem after this fiasco. They really can't afford not to do something, since the recall system has been abused twice in 20yrs to remove feasible Democratic governors. They can't leave this loaded handgun laying around in the nursery any longer. We better see an initiative to change this provision in the next general election.
There are a few things that are worth considering:
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/07/4-needed-reforms-of-californias-recall-election-rules/
I particularly like "distributive partisan requirements" - I'd vote to recall a Blagojevich if we elected somebody like that in CA. It's possible - people can fool you - or change.
I think others have mentioned "just let LT Governor take over" - I'm for deleting question #2 for this office, no reason to run an orphan election.
I like the idea of recall as an extra check on public figures to behave themselves and (for better or worse) mind what the public thinks. We sure needed a recall option for Trump & we could use one for a few other federal officers & it would be good if we could make the state model work better as an example for a someday reform of our archaic federal government too.
I honestly can’t see it. I hope you’re right but I don’t think that you are. The institutional Democratic Party seeks to avoid conflict and looking political at all costs. That’s basically at least half of the equation that brought us to the edge of the abyss.
I forgot to mention: the signature deadline extension. This 5 months or so of extra time made it possible for the recall petition to succeed. Ways to eliminate this should be considered.
Incidentally, the judge who made that ruling is https://ballotpedia.org/James_P._Arguelles
A Schwarzeneggar appointee.
It's petty of me, I know, but I always look up the judges in my general election ballot and vote NO on reappointing them if a Republican governor was responsible. I don't care if they walk on water and cure cancer with a touch of their hands.
So, can Peter Thiel or whomever start collecting signatures for Newsom Recall 2: Electric Boogaloo effective tomorrow?
Yes, there’s no limits or rights of peace and repose. The Republicans can keep rolling the dice as often as they want. They only need to win once to stay in power until there’s a color revolution but the Democrats need to win each and every time to preserve democracy.
LA Times headline as of now (10PM PDT):
Newsom survives recall election
Survives? Really, LA Times? SURVIVES??
G.O.P., R.I.P.
Hasta la vista, baby.
According to the Washington Post, Newsom is “projected to Prevail”. According to The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and MSNBC Newsom has “Survived”. Fox News, amusingly indicated that Newsom’s “fate is sealed”. You would think this election was close. But it was called for Newsom within an hour of polls closing. Only CNN uses the word “defeat” in its headline.
As Kevin says, this is an epic defeat for Republicans. The recall was crushed. Why won’t the MSM say so?
As Kevin says, this is an epic defeat for Republicans. The recall was crushed. Why won’t the MSM say so?
Now, now, it wouldn't be proper to be mean to Republicans. And most of the time, telling the truth about Republicans is definitely mean.
Word!
We'll have to see the headlines in the morning.
Same reason the lamestream media has us believing that 2,420 troops died in Afghanistan during El Pepe Maximo's disastrous withdrawal from the country: the narrative was already baked.
So delicious that years of attacks on California by the WSJ, Fox, and the Manhattan Institute led to this wipeout for the GOP
This is actually increasingly normal for California. The last “normie” Republican to win a statewide election for governor was Pete Wilson in 1991. He was a terrible leader and basically killed the Republican Party and handed over control of the shattered remains to the Birchers.
Since then, if memory serves, the only Republican to win statewide office was Schwarzenegger who obviously had tremendous name recognition and avoided the taint of having to compete in the Republican primary.
Over time, the hard line Birchers who form the base of the party here have basically driven it into a ditch. Democrats now have all statewide offices and a legislative supermajority.
Lolz, Birchers. What a crock. Globalist con men financed by big banks. Maybe you should educate yourself and understand the con. There is a reason why the "real" organized Birchers self destructed in the mid-60's. Then was kept around as a "shell company" for globalist reactionaries whoring for capitalism.....while never intending to grab power.
Wait--the Gov. in up for re-election in 9 months?
And Larry Elder will likely represent Republicans in the actual election. So expect similar results.
Or more likely -- the CA GQP will decide that Elder lost because he wasn't insane *enough* and run with someone even crazier. I'm guessing they'll nominate whoever's the head of the Aryan Nation gang in San Quentin or something.
Charlie died, but could the GQP run a member of the Manson Family for governor?
What are Sara Jane Moore & Squeaky up to?
Those damn hippies? Fat chance. (Although they *did* literally kill a bunch of rich Hollywood elites this one time...) No, it will have to be someone with characteristically broad appeal for a Republican, like a guy who stomps puppies to death for a living or something.
Roseanne Barr.
I suppose they are mad at him for conceding defeat. He will have to ramp up the “it was rigged” rhetoric if he wants to win back their trust.
With such a large margin of defeat, Elder should have accused the California Democrat Party of running a Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe style preference vote.
If independent (I am not saying they should secede) would California probably be a major player on the world arena and probably also be having a modern political system allowing social progress and handling of climate breakdown.
… but they are dragged down by a group of states longing more for the the Middle Ages than the 21th century
A sarcastic comment from a Swede
I was trying to figure out who were the 1.11% who voted for Caitlyn Jenner, then I realized, she got the 1% vote.
Caitlyn Jenner gave speeches!
(Literally, true. After winning decathlon gold, Caitlyn went on the motivational & corporate retreat lecture circuit.)
Hey, wingnuts,
Go get the fucking shot!
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/1437655902404759552
Has anyone bothered to lay out research to measure the effect of COVID-19 deaths on vote outcomes?
It just seems like even though the polling was tracking double-digit gap, it wasn't supposed to be a 2-1 gap.
Charles Gaba did this in a post as Brainwrap on dailykos the other day.
My bet is a lot of Republican voters didn't bother to vote -- in person or otherwise --because the mail-in vote was huge and they thought it was all rigged. Thanks, Trump!
Rather than cause some reflection about how to run more moderate candidates with broad-based appeal, what I think this will do is simply reinforce Republicans' commitment to supressing the vote, severely limiting mail-in voting, etc.
All the votes aren't in. The "dumps" last evening were entirely Vote-By-Mail results. The Sure-To-Be-Redder Day-Of results will be finished today sometime. That will shrink the margin to something closer to 60-40 and then the Procrastination Vote will trickle in over the next week.
'...there's no guarantee that even tonight's epic drubbing will convince them to stop. '
Why would they stop? It's quite likely that Elder is convinced himself, that the election was stolen from him. These people drink their own Kool-Aid....
Elder had the Dominion harddrives two days before the election. The GQP caught the Democrat Sicialist Machine redhanded.
Any Republican smart enough to think up an alternative to voter suppression and other antidemocratic maneuvers has either left the party or is being ignored.
So, CA Dems survived the recall. Was it because the GOP candidates were so bad? Was it because Newsom was that good? Was it because the whole election was crooked?
I've never visited CA. I used it as a REST AREA on my way home, to Rhode Island which in itself is a REST AREA between NY/CT and Mass.
But all I have heard is that CA is reliably blue. It will always be blue yadda yadda.
Political pendulums swing and are always in motion. I remember CA being republican.
This is the second recall election in recent history. The ease in which this happened was shocking to people outside of CA. I am left with an uneasy feeling that the home of Saint Ronnie, of Devin Nunes, and Ahnold is starting to show some pink hues to it's recently blue political paint job.
FIX the recall. Make the bar higher for an election to take place. Make it a serious gesture again. The whole country is watching
Errr, waste of a post. The whole blue/red con cracks me up. Maybe that is what lack of swing voters bringing a different perspective means. A sham recall that was even worse than 2003 doesn't help.
This was no indication of a Republican resurgence in California. As you say, the barrier to getting a recall on the ballot is much too low. The Repubs figured this is the only way they might get into the Governor's office because they aren't going to win a general election any time soon.
California is a red state outside of the population centers. In that sense, it's representative of the country as a whole.
It's why you get the crazy stuff where some farmer in Fresno has a field full of Mexican's picking his crop, yet, is complaining about Mexicans taking over the state.
Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy, other like minded folks are products of this state. And they aren't any saner than the rest of them because they're all in safe R districts.
Nooners is WAY crazier than most non-Dixie Republicans. Way crazier.
My impression is that the presence of so-blue California so near & in control of the state makes the red areas redder than almost any red area in the country (oh there are some other crazy places). The northern mountain counties, for instance.
Republicans are foursquare and 100% against wasting the taxpayers' money -- unless they're the ones doing the wasting. Pointless recalls, endless vote recounts (and "recounts"), re-investigations of bone-headed, whacked-out conspiracy theories -- those are all good! Taxpayer dollars are only wasted if they go to help some non-rich person.
+1 golf weekend at Maralago
I agree with the majority here: Repeal of the recall provision: Ain't going to happen. It would be bad politics. But a reform would be easy lifting: The main problem is question 2. You had nearly 50 names to choose from this time (last time too if I remember correctly), none of them remotely qualified for the job.
So two reform options: Drop question 2 and have the lieutenant governor take over. It is the only reason we have a lieutenant governor in the first place, isn't it?
Or: Make the recall committee nominate a candidate to make it a one on one race.
A third option might be to abolish recall elections and substitute a procedure for impeachment (I don't even know if one already exist in CA. If it does: why add the recall in the first place?).
The problem with Impeachment -- and yes, California has it -- is that the Legislature is so one-sided politically. It would be very difficult to Impeach and convict a Democratic governor.
So I think there's a place for having recall elections for the Governor. It's the offensively un-democratic extreme first-past-the-post replacement election which needs to go.
I should have had a last thought: "Just elevate the Lieutanant Governor. It's what they're for."
It wouldn't be difficult at all to impeach in supermajority CA. In fact that's what I would've expected with "Governor-elect" Elder - one misstep & he'd be launched out of Sacramento before he had time to tie his tie.
Impeachment in general just doesn't work in a political system like ours.
Agreed. If the recall passes then the Lt. Governor takes over. Also, raise the requirement for signatures to something like 50% of registered voters, not just those who voted in the last election. It should be relatively hard to remove the governor. They only serve for four years. It takes nearly two years to collect signatures and call an election. The recall should be in place to quickly remove a governor is really awful, otherwise wait for the next election.