Why the CA-Recall results are bad for Democrats.

[Calthrina950]

They're bad for CA Democrats because they have to keep dealing with Gavin f**king Newsom while Larry Elder, the worst replacement candidate, received almost a majority of the vote.

This is what happens when you choose Yes for Question 1 and leave Question 2 blank.

This is the real bad news. Elder padded Newsom’s margin, and because he won by a lot, he’s less likely to change course (and there will be less external pressure on him to do so).

Newsom is a bad Governor in need of humbling or a primary. The recall made both of these things less likely.

Newsom is emboldened by his victory in the recall, and I'm sure he now believes that he has a mandate from the electorate, even more so than what he possessed before. California voters will now have to deal with the consequences; they have no grounds to complain about Newsom in the future.

[Calthrina950]

They're bad for CA Democrats because they have to keep dealing with Gavin f**king Newsom while Larry Elder, the worst replacement candidate, received almost a majority of the vote.

This is what happens when you choose Yes for Question 1 and leave Question 2 blank.

This is the real bad news. Elder padded Newsom’s margin, and because he won by a lot, he’s less likely to change course (and there will be less external pressure on him to do so).

Newsom is a bad Governor in need of humbling or a primary. The recall made both of these things less likely.

Newsom is emboldened by his victory in the recall, and I'm sure he now believes that he has a mandate from the electorate, even more so than what he possessed before. California voters will now have to deal with the consequences; they have no grounds to complain about Newsom in the future.

We’re actually still allowed to complain about whoever we want.

Technically you are, but such complaints hold less force now than they did before. And this will especially be the case if Newsom is reelected next year. The best outcome for Democrats would have been to recall Newsom and replace him with a more moderate or pragmatic Democrat.

[Calthrina950]

Technically you are, but such complaints hold less force now than they did before. And this will especially be the case if Newsom is reelected next year. The best outcome for Democrats would have been to recall Newsom and replace him with a more moderate or pragmatic Democrat.

Democrats don't want the same things in a leader conservatives do.

Are you saying that Democrats want a leader who is proudly progressive? I'm not going to say that they can't have that, but is it not possible to have a progressive who is also pragmatic? Someone in the vein of say, Jared Polis? Newsom's hypocrisy with regards to the pandemic is what I object to the most, and I do think that California wouldn't be hurt by having a Governor who is more sensible on social issues.

[Calthrina950]

Technically you are, but such complaints hold less force now than they did before. And this will especially be the case if Newsom is reelected next year. The best outcome for Democrats would have been to recall Newsom and replace him with a more moderate or pragmatic Democrat.

Democrats don't want the same things in a leader conservatives do.

Are you saying that Democrats want a leader who is proudly progressive? I'm not going to say that they can't have that, but is it not possible to have a progressive who is also pragmatic? Someone in the vein of say, Jared Polis? Newsom's hypocrisy with regards to the pandemic is what I object to the most, and I do think that California wouldn't be hurt by having a Governor who is more sensible on social issues.

I am, yes. I entirely agree we should want politicians who are pragmatic and to punish hypocrites, but the Democratic base isn't looking for someone more conservative on social or fiscal issues. We are interested in seeing our values realized, not in compromising with Republicans who don't seem to regard us as lawful voters.

California would be best served by a competent, moral governor who reflects the values of its majority.

I'm not saying that California should elect a Governor who would impose Texas-style abortion laws or engage in useless culture war crusades such as the fight against "critical race theory" (which as you know, I've been very much opposed to Republicans on). But I do think that steps can be taken by Democrats to better maintain their position among working-class and minority voters, and to do so in a way that reminds them of the substantive benefits which they can derive from Democratic legislation. I don't think Newsom would be the best such advocate for this. Moreover, I also think that he's not the person to address some of the more underlying problems-such as homelessness-which the state has faced.

[Calthrina950]

Newsom is emboldened by his victory in the recall, and I'm sure he now believes that he has a mandate from the electorate, even more so than what he possessed before. California voters will now have to deal with the consequences; they have no grounds to complain about Newsom in the future.

Can someone explain to me what exactly is supposedly so uniquely bad about Newsom? What has he done that is so horrible, compared to other governors? I am sure he is not absolutely perfect in every possible way, but nobody is going to be that. So what exactly is this huge knock on him that allegedly makes him worse than your average governor to the extent that he allegedly ought to be gotten rid of mid-term?

There really isn't anything uniquely bad about him. Republicans have been trying to find someone to make into a villain the way that Democrats did to Trump, but the problem is they pick fairly boring and non-offensive people to do that with.

Newsom is nowhere near as bad as Trump, but that doesn't mean that he should be praised or liked either.

[Calthrina950]

Newsom is emboldened by his victory in the recall, and I'm sure he now believes that he has a mandate from the electorate, even more so than what he possessed before. California voters will now have to deal with the consequences; they have no grounds to complain about Newsom in the future.

Can someone explain to me what exactly is supposedly so uniquely bad about Newsom? What has he done that is so horrible, compared to other governors? I am sure he is not absolutely perfect in every possible way, but nobody is going to be that. So what exactly is this huge knock on him that allegedly makes him worse than your average governor to the extent that he allegedly ought to be gotten rid of mid-term?

There really isn't anything uniquely bad about him. Republicans have been trying to find someone to make into a villain the way that Democrats did to Trump, but the problem is they pick fairly boring and non-offensive people to do that with.

Newsom is nowhere near as bad as Trump, but that doesn't mean that he should be praised or liked either.

Stop twisting my words. I never said anyone was obligated to praise or like him. The point that you are not getting is that Newsom is not offensive enough to recall or even hate. Republicans hate him for a whole lot of imagined reasons that most voters do not even see.

What is your problem? I did not intend my post as an attack against you, but you chose to interpret it that way. No matter. I have to remind myself sometimes that I cannot allow myself to return to the situation I was in before my hiatus. I disagree with you with regards to Newsom. I believe that there are legitimate reasons to object to him or to disagree with him, and I've said before that I feel California Democrats would be better served by having another, more pragmatic Democrat as Governor rather than him.

Now, this doesn't mean that I would support some extremist becoming Governor. I didn't support Larry Elder, and I disagree with him on a number of issues. Republicans botched their campaign in California, and the field of replacement candidates was weak. What would the outcome have been if some formidable Democratic challenger had gotten in? Voters, I believe, would have seized that alternative.

[Calthrina950]

Newsom is emboldened by his victory in the recall, and I'm sure he now believes that he has a mandate from the electorate, even more so than what he possessed before. California voters will now have to deal with the consequences; they have no grounds to complain about Newsom in the future.

Can someone explain to me what exactly is supposedly so uniquely bad about Newsom? What has he done that is so horrible, compared to other governors? I am sure he is not absolutely perfect in every possible way, but nobody is going to be that. So what exactly is this huge knock on him that allegedly makes him worse than your average governor to the extent that he allegedly ought to be gotten rid of mid-term?

There really isn't anything uniquely bad about him. Republicans have been trying to find someone to make into a villain the way that Democrats did to Trump, but the problem is they pick fairly boring and non-offensive people to do that with.

Newsom is nowhere near as bad as Trump, but that doesn't mean that he should be praised or liked either.

Stop twisting my words. I never said anyone was obligated to praise or like him. The point that you are not getting is that Newsom is not offensive enough to recall or even hate. Republicans hate him for a whole lot of imagined reasons that most voters do not even see.

What is your problem? I did not intend my post as an attack against you, but you chose to interpret it that way. No matter. I have to remind myself sometimes that I cannot allow myself to return to the situation I was in before my hiatus. I disagree with you with regards to Newsom. I believe that there are legitimate reasons to object to him or to disagree with him, and I've said before that I feel California Democrats would be better served by having another, more pragmatic Democrat as Governor rather than him.

Now, this doesn't mean that I would support some extremist becoming Governor. I didn't support Larry Elder, and I disagree with him on a number of issues. Republicans botched their campaign in California, and the field of replacement candidates was weak. What would the outcome have been if some formidable Democratic challenger had gotten in? Voters, I believe, would have seized that alternative.

You do have a very clear pattern of misinterpreting/misconstruing/misstating what people say to create a straw man for a narrative you believe in.  

I decided to delete my initial response to this because I felt that I was lashing out. I'll try to be more measured here. What I'll say is that it is not my intention to misinterpret or misconstrue what others say. Nor am I trying to craft a "straw man" or a manipulative narrative. I try to follow the trends in elections, learn from those trends, and see how they might apply in the future.

Ever since returning from my hiatus, I've tried to be more open-minded and reflective. Two years ago, I was wrong about Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Last year, I overestimated Biden and Democrats generally. And I underestimated the margin of defeat for the recall, as I've noted elsewhere. What I'm trying to point out is that this result in California shouldn't be construed as being entirely predictive of what will happen next year.

Much can change between now and November 2022, and many of the contests we'll see will be in terrain that may not be as friendly to Democrats. It's also important to emphasize that polarization will influence next year's results. I do believe that Republicans will regain control of Congress, but it won't be by the margins of 1994 or 2010, and both Houses will be close either way.