California Democratic Party calls recall attempt against Gavin Newsom a coup

[Hammy]

This is a great way to legitimize what Trump supporters did, if they're just going to label everything a coup that results in them not being in power.

[DrScholl]

It's called branding. If Republicans can label everything they don't like "socialist" then Democrats can make everything Republicans do look totally insane. One reason why Democrats fail some times it that they do not brand the opposition properly. From a political standpoint it doesn't matter if the recall is legal, the point is to remind voters of what Trump supporters just did and are capable of.

[Canis]

Its a really stupid way to brand it. Like I don't like Newsom and am likely to not vote for him the primary certainly maybe in the general (but pretty unlikely id vote for a Republican if it was DvR) but id vote no on a recall nothing Newsom did warrants a recall. If they get enough sigs to trigger a recall which I doubt will happen because they all have to be legitimate signatures,  I don't see it passing the polls have Newsom at 55-60% approval here. Republicans know their only shot in hell of unseating Newsom is a low turnout special which is why they're pushing this recall crap.

[Hammy]

It's called branding. If Republicans can label everything they don't like "socialist" then Democrats can make everything Republicans do look totally insane. One reason why Democrats fail some times it that they do not brand the opposition properly. From a political standpoint it doesn't matter if the recall is legal, the point is to remind voters of what Trump supporters just did and are capable of.

The difference is socialism is Republicans labeling everything as socialism is hurting their own message. So what you're saying is Democrats should respond to this by similarly harming their own message. Calling a proper democratic procedure a "coup" invalidates any legitimate criticism Dems have, because that means any legitimate threat they point out (like an actual coup attempt) becomes mere partisan talk.

[John Dule]

Nuisance is an idiot and I will be voting to kick his ass out.

[Badger]

Yawn. Newsome will be fine

[Motorcity]

Thank to Trump, removing any leader from power is now called a coup.

Lost an election? Coup
Forced out by recall? Coup
Caught with an intern and resigns? Coup
Term limited? Coup

[beaver2.0]

Nuisance is an idiot and I will be voting to kick his ass out.

Man apparently you're part of a coup of you vote Yes to recall him.

[The Houstonian]

California Democrats (as in the politicians) are probably the most unlikeable Democrats in the nation, with the possible exception of Illinois Democrats.

Faulconer may be fine but he's still a Republican--with a non-LA/Bay support base to boot. He might be able to pull it off if he goes independent like Poizner but the GOP is ten times as toxic as Newsom. If you can't even convince SoCal moderate Dems to vote Republican for governor, you've already lost the race. Also, CA only gave Bernie a plurality. If Bloomberg and Warren had dropped and you didn't have all those Pete and Amy votes banked, do you really think Sanders would have won CA? And remember, he only got a plurality amongst Democratic primary voters. It isn't happening.

Yes, he would have won Cali even without Warren in the race. Lol. Bloomberg doesn't factor into the math, a lot of his supporters were extremely low-info and probably wouldn't have shown up otherwise. Once again Cali voted for the best candidate in the race. It's just that simple.

That isn't actually based in reason.

There's no reason to think that California Bloomberg supporters or Warren supporters would have behaved any differently from those in other states. It's just that a ton of people here voted early. Sanders only got 36% of the vote--which isn't actually impressive. Biden got 28% and the rest went to other people. Add Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg supporters to Biden's total (mirroring voter trends seen elsewhere) and Biden jumps ahead of Sanders to 46% of the vote. Split Warren voters 50-50 and the race becomes Biden 53-Sanders 43.

That's a respectable performance but to act like Sanders had an overwhelming mandate from California Democrats is simply untrue. Once you factor in the rest of the electorate, only about 27% of Californians support a Sanders-style candidate. Considering the relevant question we're discussing here is whether someone can replace Newsom from the left (answer: they can't), looking at the primary in this manner is the only useful mode of analysis.

This reminds me of the time when Bernie votes were compared to Biden + Buttigieg + Warren votes after the Nevada caucus, as if those three candidates were one. That is what you are trying to do here, without acknowledging that many Pete/Klob/Bloomberg voters went to Biden because their candidates endorsed Biden.

[lfromnj]

Nuisance is an idiot and I will be voting to kick his ass out.

Not sure if intended or you switched to Badger's voice app.

Also lol relavent

[dead0man]

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Faulconer/status/1353771811410907136?ref_src=twsrc%5Et...

I wonder if the sudden reversal is an attempt to not get coup'd?

[Benjamin Frank]

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Faulconer/status/1353771811410907136?ref_src=twsrc%5Et...
I wonder if the sudden reversal is an attempt to not get coup'd?

I don't doubt that politics plays a role, maybe even a major role in the decisions, but the idea of just 'follow the science' is illogical.  

First, 'the science' can only give an indication as to what will happen with any decision, it can't decide the appropriate balance between shutting down to prevent deaths and keeping open to keep the economy going, nor is it as simple as finding some appropriate balance.

Second, the science itself is not certain on many of these things.  How contagious are the new variants?  The scientists are learning about this in real time pretty much the same as everybody else.

Third, the measures involved encompass more than science but also sociology, i.e how the public, especially the irresponsible public, will react to new rules.  Public health officials seem still be divided on what the best measures are that will get public acceptance, and nor is public acceptance static.