CA GOV 2021 - 2022 megathread

[Calthrina950]

This map looks like a repeat of the 2003 gubernatorial recall map, and it seems to be a very plausible one.

Here's the 2003 Recall map.

I posted this map myself earlier on this thread, and as I said, there is a resemblance. The point about San Luis Obispo County is well made, however, and correct.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

This map looks like a repeat of the 2003 gubernatorial recall map, and it seems to be a very plausible one.

Here's the 2003 Recall map.

I posted this map myself earlier on this thread, and as I said, there is a resemblance. The point about San Luis Obispo County is well made, however, and correct.

On the note of maps, this is what I got when you take Berkeley's poll data, and give Gavin all the undecideds, making the results 47-53 in favor of no. This honestly is what I think the most likely results are, as well.


 

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

This map looks like a repeat of the 2003 gubernatorial recall map, and it seems to be a very plausible one.

Here's the 2003 Recall map.

I posted this map myself earlier on this thread, and as I said, there is a resemblance. The point about San Luis Obispo County is well made, however, and correct.

On the note of maps, this is what I got when you take Berkeley's poll data, and give Gavin all the undecideds, making the results 47-53 in favor of no. This honestly is what I think the most likely results are, as well.


 

I think Santa Barbara County will be the bellwether as it closely follows the statewide margin in most elections.

[DrScholl]

The 2018 Insurance Commissioner race is a good map to look at to when trying to predict benchmarks. 2003 was a long time ago and I think it's bit extreme to think the recall is going win 70%+ in Southern California and only narrowly fail in Los Angeles County like back then.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

This map looks like a repeat of the 2003 gubernatorial recall map, and it seems to be a very plausible one.

Here's the 2003 Recall map.

I posted this map myself earlier on this thread, and as I said, there is a resemblance. The point about San Luis Obispo County is well made, however, and correct.

On the note of maps, this is what I got when you take Berkeley's poll data, and give Gavin all the undecideds, making the results 47-53 in favor of no. This honestly is what I think the most likely results are, as well.


 

I think Santa Barbara County will be the bellwether as it closely follows the statewide margin in most elections.

That's exactly what Blairite and I agreed on, and SB on this map is 5 points for NO as I recall.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

The 2018 Insurance Commissioner race is a good map to look at to when trying to predict benchmarks. 2003 was a long time ago and I think it's bit extreme to think the recall is going win 70%+ in Southern California and only narrowly fail in Los Angeles County like back then.

The issue with that map is his drastic underperformance in SoCal, like only winning San Diego by a point, and getting 30% in SF, which thats not possible. I did base the rurals on that with a mix of his and trump's results, due to Berkeley not really polling them.

[Хahar 🤔]

Very few posters here seem to have any understanding of the actual dynamics of this race. I'll share my thoughts as someone who has so far been pretty consistently correct about what people would do.

1. Any comparison to 2003 immediately runs into the problem that Gray Davis was very unpopular in 2003 and Gavin Newsom is not. People predicting a map that looks just like 2003 for some reason would be well served to think about this.

2. TML two pages ago correctly pointed out that the polls that have everyone aflutter don't make any sense if you take them as indications of reality. Polls say all sorts of things before people pay attention to an election. All summer I've been spending about ten hours a week riding my bicycle around Santa Clara County; in that time, I've seen exactly once any indication that there was an election on at all (a "RECALL NEWSOM" sign in the window of a house in Santa Clara). I've seen exactly one ad on television related to the election (an ad with a message from Elizabeth Warren). If you're smart you can figure out what that indicates.

3. It can't be overstated the extent to which every candidate in the field is viewed as a joke candidate. I've been told that the talk show host is known to people in the Los Angeles area who listened to right-wing talk radio ten or fifteen years ago. Most of the electorate is not that. I've never heard of him. John Cox was creamed and immediately forgotten three years ago; if people have to be reminded of him now, the thing that will jog their memory is the bear stunt, which did not exactly make him seem like a credible candidate. Nobody outside San Diego knows who Kevin Faulconer is. The remaining candidates are somehow all even worse. There's a reason that the California Republican Party was unable to unite behind a candidate, in spite of all the incentives for them to do so. In 2003 there were multiple credible candidates; now there are none.

4. The numbers on the second question will look even sillier because of the number of Democrats who will not vote. Plenty will not vote because all the candidates are so awful, plenty will not vote because the Democratic Party is actively encouraging people not to cast a vote on the second question, and plenty will not understand that they can cast a vote on the second question even if they vote no on the first question.

5. Whatever landlord has been polling well on the second question will not get any significant number of votes in the actual election. On these polls, he is the only Democrat listed and respondents are being pushed to answer the second question regardless of their response to the first question; neither of those points reflect what the actual election will be like. Remember in Georgia last year when Lieberman and Tarver were consistently being polled and there was real fear that Lieberman votes would push Warnock out of the runoff? Then the election happened and they were both crushed by a random Democrat with a black name. That should serve as a learning experience.

I know the thought of a shock successful recall is really exciting, especially to the blue avatars here, but they should think about whether this actually makes any sense.

[Rjjr77]

Very few posters here seem to have any understanding of the actual dynamics of this race. I'll share my thoughts as someone who has so far been pretty consistently correct about what people would do.

1. Any comparison to 2003 immediately runs into the problem that Gray Davis was very unpopular in 2003 and Gavin Newsom is not. People predicting a map that looks just like 2003 for some reason would be well served to think about this.

2. TML two pages ago correctly pointed out that the polls that have everyone aflutter don't make any sense if you take them as indications of reality. Polls say all sorts of things before people pay attention to an election. All summer I've been spending about ten hours a week riding my bicycle around Santa Clara County; in that time, I've seen exactly once any indication that there was an election on at all (a "RECALL NEWSOM" sign in the window of a house in Santa Clara). I've seen exactly one ad on television related to the election (an ad with a message from Elizabeth Warren). If you're smart you can figure out what that indicates.

3. It can't be overstated the extent to which every candidate in the field is viewed as a joke candidate. I've been told that the talk show host is known to people in the Los Angeles area who listened to right-wing talk radio ten or fifteen years ago. Most of the electorate is not that. I've never heard of him. John Cox was creamed and immediately forgotten three years ago; if people have to be reminded of him now, the thing that will jog their memory is the bear stunt, which did not exactly make him seem like a credible candidate. Nobody outside San Diego knows who Kevin Faulconer is. The remaining candidates are somehow all even worse. There's a reason that the California Republican Party was unable to unite behind a candidate, in spite of all the incentives for them to do so. In 2003 there were multiple credible candidates; now there are none.

4. The numbers on the second question will look even sillier because of the number of Democrats who will not vote. Plenty will not vote because all the candidates are so awful, plenty will not vote because the Democratic Party is actively encouraging people not to cast a vote on the second question, and plenty will not understand that they can cast a vote on the second question even if they vote no on the first question.

5. Whatever landlord has been polling well on the second question will not get any significant number of votes in the actual election. On these polls, he is the only Democrat listed and respondents are being pushed to answer the second question regardless of their response to the first question; neither of those points reflect what the actual election will be like. Remember in Georgia last year when Lieberman and Tarver were consistently being polled and there was real fear that Lieberman votes would push Warnock out of the runoff? Then the election happened and they were both crushed by a random Democrat with a black name. That should serve as a learning experience.

I know the thought of a shock successful recall is really exciting, especially to the blue avatars here, but they should think about whether this actually makes any sense.

I agree with all of this, except it is missing one big part. Anything can happen in an off year. Newsom is most likely safe, but does the safety and the under-the-radar reporting cut his knees off in turnout?

[Skye]

The 2018 Insurance Commissioner race is a good map to look at to when trying to predict benchmarks. 2003 was a long time ago and I think it's bit extreme to think the recall is going win 70%+ in Southern California and only narrowly fail in Los Angeles County like back then.

Poinzner's performance in the Bay Area was really strong though. My guess is that the Yes option won't fare as well there but it might do better in SoCal (if it ends up being close, obviously). But agree that 2003 numbers in SoCal don't look like they are possible in the post-Trump era.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

The 2018 Insurance Commissioner race is a good map to look at to when trying to predict benchmarks. 2003 was a long time ago and I think it's bit extreme to think the recall is going win 70%+ in Southern California and only narrowly fail in Los Angeles County like back then.

Poinzner's performance in the Bay Area was really strong though. My guess is that the Yes option won't fare as well there but it might do better in SoCal (if it ends up being close, obviously). But agree that 2003 numbers in SoCal don't look like they are possible in the post-Trump era.

Berkeley shows it getting 60% in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside, but just 31% in the bay.

[NewYorkExpress]

A Federal lawsuit is arguing that California's recall provisions are unconstitutional.

Two California voters are challenging the legality of the state’s recall system less than a month before the Sept. 14 election, echoing concerns from constitutional scholars as Gov. Gavin Newsom fights for his political life.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California argues that the state's recall provision violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing sitting governors to be replaced by candidates who have received fewer votes. The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, want a court order either prohibiting the recall election or adding Newsom's name to the replacement candidate list. Elections officials have already sent millions of ballots ahead of a state deadline today.


Gubernatorial recalls in California involve a two-part ballot. Voters are asked whether to recall the sitting governor, then who should replace the governor. If a majority of voters oust Newsom, whichever candidate receives the most votes on the second question would replace him.

That allows a replacement candidate to be elected with a small plurality — and potentially with far fewer votes than the number of votes cast to keep the current governor. While polls show Newsom in a tight race to stay in office, the leading Republican contender to replace Newsom has consistently registered support from a quarter or less of the electorate.

[Sir Mohamed]

Imagine Gray Davis if that is struck down. I doubt that'll happen though.

[brucejoel99]

A Federal lawsuit is arguing that California's recall provisions are unconstitutional.

Two California voters are challenging the legality of the state’s recall system less than a month before the Sept. 14 election, echoing concerns from constitutional scholars as Gov. Gavin Newsom fights for his political life.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California argues that the state's recall provision violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing sitting governors to be replaced by candidates who have received fewer votes. The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, want a court order either prohibiting the recall election or adding Newsom's name to the replacement candidate list. Elections officials have already sent millions of ballots ahead of a state deadline today.


Gubernatorial recalls in California involve a two-part ballot. Voters are asked whether to recall the sitting governor, then who should replace the governor. If a majority of voters oust Newsom, whichever candidate receives the most votes on the second question would replace him.

That allows a replacement candidate to be elected with a small plurality — and potentially with far fewer votes than the number of votes cast to keep the current governor. While polls show Newsom in a tight race to stay in office, the leading Republican contender to replace Newsom has consistently registered support from a quarter or less of the electorate.

As somebody who opposes recalls in general because impeachment exists (see: NY) & the Newsom recall in particular because it's stupid as f**k, this attempted application of federal constitutional principles is quite possibly one of the most ludicrous constitutional arguments which I've ever seen put forth in court.

The Californian recall process as provided for by Sections 13-19 of Article II of the California Constitution & given effect to by the California Elections Code results in 2 separate elections being conducted on the same ballot. The principle of individuals being afforded equal representation in voting applies to both of those elections: each person who votes on the recall question has one vote, each of which equally impacts the ultimate material outcome of said question (i.e., to recall or not to recall); likewise, each person who votes on the replacement question has one vote, each of which equally impacts the ultimate material outcome of said question (i.e., which replacement candidate obtains a plurality, wins that question, & thus becomes Governor in the event that a majority voted "Yes" on the recall question). Contrary to this suit's assertions, nowhere in determining the outcomes of those questions is a denial of equal protection provided for. If at the end of the day, there were more votes cast for "No" on the recall question than there were for the plurality winner of the replacement question, then tough cookies: that's not a denial of equal protection, given that A.) they're separate elections; & B.) the recalled official isn't permitted to compete on the 2nd question. If that latter aspect is somehow unconstitutional &/or a denial of the recalled official's supporters' equal protection, then I guess California's lifetime 2 term-limit for state officers is also unconstitutional in the same fashion, given that it - taking the aforementioned argument to its logical extension, anyway - denies the equal protection of supporters of term-limited officers by disenfranchising them.

Now, it's one thing to have a problem with the fact that only a plurality is required to win the second question in the event that the result of the first question needs to be given effect to, but unless there's now some previously unheard-of theorem out there stipulating that plurality elections in & of themselves are unconstitutional (which is just, y'know, lol), that's a question of electoral policy left to the political process rather than constitutional principles left to the legal process. If one has such a problem, then the only correct avenue for correcting that problem would be to call for the ratification of an amendment to the plurality provision in Section 15(c) of Article II of the California Constitution, because by no means is there any federal constitutional question of law that's at play in this here.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Recall is over Elder said  minimum wage should be zero, Newsom wins

We gotta wait for VA, VA is very much like OH, it's a fickled state, it vote partisan trends but the outparty can be very competetive just like Ryan v Mandel

[Utah Neolib]

Our ballots just arrived I voted No on Question 1 and Faulconer for question 2. It felt nasty voting for a Republican. I briefly considered voting third party. I asked my family how their voting and they asked me how I did. I told them how and my reasons and all of them are voting the same as me. Gonna drop off the ballots at the dropbox tomorrow afternoon.

You should’ve voted for YouTube Landlord Guy

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

A Federal lawsuit is arguing that California's recall provisions are unconstitutional.

Two California voters are challenging the legality of the state’s recall system less than a month before the Sept. 14 election, echoing concerns from constitutional scholars as Gov. Gavin Newsom fights for his political life.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California argues that the state's recall provision violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing sitting governors to be replaced by candidates who have received fewer votes. The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, want a court order either prohibiting the recall election or adding Newsom's name to the replacement candidate list. Elections officials have already sent millions of ballots ahead of a state deadline today.


Gubernatorial recalls in California involve a two-part ballot. Voters are asked whether to recall the sitting governor, then who should replace the governor. If a majority of voters oust Newsom, whichever candidate receives the most votes on the second question would replace him.

That allows a replacement candidate to be elected with a small plurality — and potentially with far fewer votes than the number of votes cast to keep the current governor. While polls show Newsom in a tight race to stay in office, the leading Republican contender to replace Newsom has consistently registered support from a quarter or less of the electorate.

As somebody who opposes recalls in general because impeachment exists (see: NY) & the Newsom recall in particular because it's stupid as f**k, this attempted application of federal constitutional principles is quite possibly one of the most ludicrous constitutional arguments which I've ever seen put forth in court.

The Californian recall process as provided for by Sections 13-19 of Article II of the California Constitution & given effect to by the California Elections Code results in 2 separate elections being conducted on the same ballot. The principle of individuals being afforded equal representation in voting applies to both of those elections: each person who votes on the recall question has one vote, each of which equally impacts the ultimate material outcome of said question (i.e., to recall or not to recall); likewise, each person who votes on the replacement question has one vote, each of which equally impacts the ultimate material outcome of said question (i.e., which replacement candidate obtains a plurality, wins that question, & thus becomes Governor in the event that a majority voted "Yes" on the recall question). Contrary to this suit's assertions, nowhere in determining the outcomes of those questions is a denial of equal protection provided for. If at the end of the day, there were more votes cast for "No" on the recall question than there were for the plurality winner of the replacement question, then tough cookies: that's not a denial of equal protection, given that A.) they're separate elections; & B.) the recalled official isn't permitted to compete on the 2nd question. If that latter aspect is somehow unconstitutional &/or a denial of the recalled official's supporters' equal protection, then I guess California's lifetime 2 term-limit for state officers is also unconstitutional in the same fashion, given that it - taking the aforementioned argument to its logical extension, anyway - denies the equal protection of supporters of term-limited officers by disenfranchising them.

Now, it's one thing to have a problem with the fact that only a plurality is required to win the second question in the event that the result of the first question needs to be given effect to, but unless there's now some previously unheard-of theorem out there stipulating that plurality elections in & of themselves are unconstitutional (which is just, y'know, lol), that's a question of electoral policy left to the political process rather than constitutional principles left to the legal process. If one has such a problem, then the only correct avenue for correcting that problem would be to call for the ratification of an amendment to the plurality provision in Section 15(c) of Article II of the California Constitution, because by no means is there any federal constitutional question of law that's at play in this here.

Tbh, to me as a Californian, the most unconstitutional thing that I can think of is that the recall doesn’t result in a top two. Not saying that I think that this case has merit, but I don’t think that the Equal Protection Clause is the way to go. But I’m not a lawyer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[brucejoel99]

A Federal lawsuit is arguing that California's recall provisions are unconstitutional.

Two California voters are challenging the legality of the state’s recall system less than a month before the Sept. 14 election, echoing concerns from constitutional scholars as Gov. Gavin Newsom fights for his political life.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California argues that the state's recall provision violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing sitting governors to be replaced by candidates who have received fewer votes. The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, want a court order either prohibiting the recall election or adding Newsom's name to the replacement candidate list. Elections officials have already sent millions of ballots ahead of a state deadline today.


Gubernatorial recalls in California involve a two-part ballot. Voters are asked whether to recall the sitting governor, then who should replace the governor. If a majority of voters oust Newsom, whichever candidate receives the most votes on the second question would replace him.

That allows a replacement candidate to be elected with a small plurality — and potentially with far fewer votes than the number of votes cast to keep the current governor. While polls show Newsom in a tight race to stay in office, the leading Republican contender to replace Newsom has consistently registered support from a quarter or less of the electorate.

As somebody who opposes recalls in general because impeachment exists (see: NY) & the Newsom recall in particular because it's stupid as f**k, this attempted application of federal constitutional principles is quite possibly one of the most ludicrous constitutional arguments which I've ever seen put forth in court.

The Californian recall process as provided for by Sections 13-19 of Article II of the California Constitution & given effect to by the California Elections Code results in 2 separate elections being conducted on the same ballot. The principle of individuals being afforded equal representation in voting applies to both of those elections: each person who votes on the recall question has one vote, each of which equally impacts the ultimate material outcome of said question (i.e., to recall or not to recall); likewise, each person who votes on the replacement question has one vote, each of which equally impacts the ultimate material outcome of said question (i.e., which replacement candidate obtains a plurality, wins that question, & thus becomes Governor in the event that a majority voted "Yes" on the recall question). Contrary to this suit's assertions, nowhere in determining the outcomes of those questions is a denial of equal protection provided for. If at the end of the day, there were more votes cast for "No" on the recall question than there were for the plurality winner of the replacement question, then tough cookies: that's not a denial of equal protection, given that A.) they're separate elections; & B.) the recalled official isn't permitted to compete on the 2nd question. If that latter aspect is somehow unconstitutional &/or a denial of the recalled official's supporters' equal protection, then I guess California's lifetime 2 term-limit for state officers is also unconstitutional in the same fashion, given that it - taking the aforementioned argument to its logical extension, anyway - denies the equal protection of supporters of term-limited officers by disenfranchising them.

Now, it's one thing to have a problem with the fact that only a plurality is required to win the second question in the event that the result of the first question needs to be given effect to, but unless there's now some previously unheard-of theorem out there stipulating that plurality elections in & of themselves are unconstitutional (which is just, y'know, lol), that's a question of electoral policy left to the political process rather than constitutional principles left to the legal process. If one has such a problem, then the only correct avenue for correcting that problem would be to call for the ratification of an amendment to the plurality provision in Section 15(c) of Article II of the California Constitution, because by no means is there any federal constitutional question of law that's at play in this here.

Tbh, to me as a Californian, the most unconstitutional thing that I can think of is that the recall doesn’t result in a top two. Not saying that I think that this case has merit, but I don’t think that the Equal Protection Clause is the way to go. But I’m not a lawyer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's at least constitutional at the state-level because "if Recall = Yes, then replacement = plurality Q2 winner" is literally provided for in the state constitution. Granted, it certainly violates the spirit of top-2 election procedures found elsewhere therein, but provisions that are located elsewhere in the constitution are obviously irrelevant insofar as provisions for the recall are concerned. Federal constitutional principles, on the other hand, just don't apply here at all in any way, though.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

Ose OUT after heart attack

[President Johnson]

Ose OUT after heart attack

May he get well soon. Not that he had a chance in this whatsoever.

[tallguy23]

Our ballots just arrived I voted No on Question 1 and Faulconer for question 2. It felt nasty voting for a Republican. I briefly considered voting third party. I asked my family how their voting and they asked me how I did. I told them how and my reasons and all of them are voting the same as me. Gonna drop off the ballots at the dropbox tomorrow afternoon.

I did the same thing. I don't want to recall Gavin but if it happens, I'd rather have an experienced person instead of a joke radio host.

[Skill and Chance]

The 2018 Insurance Commissioner race is a good map to look at to when trying to predict benchmarks. 2003 was a long time ago and I think it's bit extreme to think the recall is going win 70%+ in Southern California and only narrowly fail in Los Angeles County like back then.

Poinzner's performance in the Bay Area was really strong though. My guess is that the Yes option won't fare as well there but it might do better in SoCal (if it ends up being close, obviously). But agree that 2003 numbers in SoCal don't look like they are possible in the post-Trump era.

Berkeley shows it getting 60% in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside, but just 31% in the bay.

Yes, if it's close, this is going to be a NorCal vs. SoCal race, with Newsom winning but dramatically underperforming in L.A. County.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Lol, there's a guy named Denver Stoner!  🌿 😳

[Canis]

Lol, there's a guy named Denver Stoner!  🌿 😳

What are your thoughts on the recall Thunder are you for it or against it? what are your thoughts on the question 2 candidates?
I just got back from the gym and dropped my family's ballots off at a dropbox on the way home.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Lol, there's a guy named Denver Stoner!  🌿 😳

What are your thoughts on the recall Thunder are you for it or against it? what are your thoughts on the question 2 candidates?
I just got back from the gym and dropped my family's ballots off at a dropbox on the way home.

I voted yes on recall and very unenthusiastically voted for Kevin Falconer, despise disagreeing with his economic views which are too right wing for me.

 I never liked Newsom and I voted against him 2018. Larry Elder is a lunatic and he wants to eliminate the minimum wage. Elder just reeks of angry fox news boomerconism. I don't like Newson's handling of the homeless crisis, housing crisis and I think Newson's covid policies were way too strict imo.

Though I do like that that Newsom sending out stimulus checks, hopefully he does more to help middle and working class.

[Canis]

Calmatters is interviewing all the major recall candidates they just released their interview with Cox He seemed very well versed on the tax situation but on the environment he stumbled pretty bad imo