Over/under on California recall election [Archive]

ApatheticNoMore

9-6-21, 5:12pm

I've given up on prediction, since I said there was no way Trump could win the Presidency. Just no way it happens.

But I don't think Newsom gets recalled. Newsom is a light weight nobody who stands for little (unlike say a Jerry Brown, who I may not have always agreed with, but he actually took running the state seriously).

But this recall makes me so angry. I'm angry at the Republican party for of course having the recall in the first place for no other reason than they can't win an election otherwise, and then not even having a candidate they back (they have not endorsed), much less a remotely serious one they back. They are just chaos agents at this point in this state, they have no power, but they exist to create chaos.

AND ... I'm so angry at the Democratic party for playing Russian roulette with the state and not allowing a backup serious Dem to run if Newsom was recalled, who frankly would probably beat out any Republican just due to how blue the state is. Imagine holding a state of 40 million hostage to two @#$#ty political parties! Oh well since the 2nd question (which is independent of whether one votes yes/no on recalling Newsom) is mostly clowns especially those who can win (a 28 year old realestate youtube influence, give me a break), on it I'm voting my conscience, I'm voting the Green party guy.

bae

9-6-21, 5:14pm

What say you on the election to recall California’s governor?

I've pretty much given up on American civilization at this point.

Yppej

9-6-21, 5:23pm

I think my governor might be scared and waiting to see what happens. He is refusing to answer questions about whether he will run for a third term.

jp1

9-6-21, 6:16pm

In most other states a recall means the lt governor takes over. The idea that if we recall him means that whoever got the most votes out of the :40-whatever candidates gets the most votes is absurd. We could end up with a governor that got less than 10% of the vote…

iris lilies

9-6-21, 6:20pm

iris lilies

9-7-21, 11:02am

I will further elaborate that this California event looks like a shxtshow to me because:

1. The legal process for recall is a poor one as (apparently) allowing new candidates into the office
2. the recall process is being used inappropriately—this is not intended for “I dont like your policies waaaanh waaaanh”
3. there is no Democratic candidate as backup to the governor on the ballot

Fortunately it is likely the Governor will remain. Lots of noise and money, though, thrown at this effort, and serves as a distraction against the real impeachable offense going on in Washington D.C.

Teacher Terry

9-7-21, 11:59am

What real impeachable offense in DC?

iris lilies

9-7-21, 12:16pm

What real impeachable offense in DC?

Knowingly going against a clear Supreme Court ruling.

This isn’t King Joseph’s country no matter how hard The Squad is yapping at his heels to act that way.

This is a tyrannical act. I will accept the arguement that “but Trump did it…but Obamaba did it…” because yeah, they did in different degrees. And now we see this point on the slippery slope and it is where we are.

Alan

9-7-21, 12:31pm

What real impeachable offense in DC?I think the most recent was President Biden's request that Afghan President Ghani "project strength, whether it's true or not" in order to provide cover for Biden's chaotic withdrawal from the country before planning for an orderly evacuation of American citizens. This request sounds oddly familiar to anyone familiar with the Articles of Impeachment served against the previous President but oddly enough has gotten very little coverage in our suddenly un-curious media.

That was about the same time, probably the same week if I recall correctly, that President Biden issued an Executive Order to use the force of government to deny property owners due process on something he knew to be unconstitutional, but knowing that our partisan Congress would allow him to do so unchecked and believing his base would forgive him for it. Again, oddly enough, our Congress and media seem to no longer consider that sort of thing to be dictatorial or a threat to a vibrant democratic republic when it certainly was just a year or so ago.

Personally, I hope any talk of impeachment doesn't gain any traction since we've recently seen the tragic waste of time and energy these foolishly partisan actions are and their effect on people's trust in their government. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable, and I think he will be. I found it interesting recently to read that approximately 20% of Biden voting Democrats now regret their vote. I find that refreshing, especially now that we can't depend on our other political institutions or media to provide their historical checks and balances role on the office. All we have left is the Supreme Court and with Biden's stated intention of stacking that, who knows how much longer that protection will hold.

LDAHL

9-9-21, 12:15pm

If he were to win, would Larry Elder be California’s first black governor?

Alan

9-9-21, 1:07pm

If he were to win, would Larry Elder be California’s first black governor?
An interesting question. At least one California media outlet has labeled him as the black face of white supremacy so I guess there's some acknowledgement of his race, but that same media didn't seem to see any sign of racism when a white woman in a gorilla mask threw an egg at him yesterday. That sort of surprised me because I've been led to believe that all negative actions/reactions against a person of color is proof of racism and white supremacy. Of course, it's possible that being a Republican trumps being black once then candidate Biden told us that if you don't vote Democratic you're not black, which seems to be a pretty well accepted principle within the party.

Race relations are tricky since you never really know what the rules are, for example Democrats and national media didn't seem to notice President Biden referring to a black FEMA official as "boy" on live television a week or so ago. I feel pretty confident that no Republican could get away with that. It's all so confusing.

iris lilies

9-9-21, 1:21pm

An interesting question. At least one California media outlet has labeled him as the black face of white supremacy so I guess there's some acknowledgement of his race, but that same media didn't seem to see any sign of racism when a white woman in a gorilla mask threw an egg at him yesterday. That sort of surprised me because I've been led to believe that all negative actions/reactions against a person of color is proof of racism and white supremacy. Of course, it's possible that being a Republican trumps being black once then candidate Biden told us that if you don't vote Democratic you're not black, which seems to be a pretty well accepted principle within the party.

Race relations are tricky since you never really know what the rules are, for example Democrats and national media didn't seem to notice President Biden referring to a black FEMA official as "boy" on live television. I feel pretty confident that no Republican could get away with that. It's all so confusing.

Sigh. I do very little of trying to negotiate my way through the morass of race relations talk, I just try to skirt it all here in the land where every issue is about race even when it’s not.

I skirt it because it is boring. But as a Nextdoor moderator who voluntarily took their course on anti-discrimination and bias, I still have trouble knowing when to zap certain posts.

GeorgeParker

9-9-21, 1:40pm

Knowingly going against a clear Supreme Court ruling.There's a big difference between "knowingly going against a Supreme Court ruling" vs trying to rewrite and limit an executive order (or a law) in a way that eliminates the aspects the Supreme Court objected to. One is wrong, and the other is a totally legitimate balance-of-power legislative process.

But of course the propagandizing right wing pundits will never see the difference unless it's a republican committing the offense.

And that's all I'm going to say about that, because I already know talking sense and political fairplay in this thread would be totally useless. So in the words of Mammy Yokum https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=mammy+yokum+li%27l+abner "I has spoken."

Alan

9-9-21, 2:22pm

But of course the propagandizing right wing pundits will never see the difference unless it's a republican committing the offense.

And that's all I'm going to say about that, because I already know talking sense and political fairplay in this thread would be totally useless. Ha ha, that's funny. If you really wanted to see propagandizing you should have been here during the Bush and Trump years. ;)

All attempts at "talking sense and political fairplay" during those eras invariably led to overt anger and name calling by those who have now gone politically silent. Please let those of us attempting to draw them out of their ideological safe spaces enjoy the challenge. You could even engage a bit yourself if you'd like, I sense little to no chance of anyone holding it against you.

jp1

9-9-21, 2:53pm

GeorgeParker

9-9-21, 2:56pm

Ha ha, that's funny. If you really wanted to see propagandizing you should have been here during the Bush and Trump years. ;)I was here, and elsewhere, during the Trump years. I just wasn't posting here. And I wasn't posting about anything even vaguely political anywhere because the right wing was so biased and vindictive that no useful conversation could take place. To a large extent, the same is still true -- lots of exaggerated claims about what the other side wants or is trying to do, with very little nuance and even fewer objective facts.

Little to no chance of anyone holding it against youHave you forgotten the way I was blasted for saying something about anti-immigration extremists? Certain people automatically assumed I was talking about everyone who opposes illegal immigration, whereas I was actually referring to the extremist people who oppose all immigration (supporters of Trump's "muslim ban" etc) and the SLF members who intentionally misread my middle-of-the road position as a direct attack on their beliefs instantly went on the attack.

So I was reluctant to post the message you replied to, and from now on my reply to almost anything political will usually be {crickets}.

Alan

9-9-21, 3:47pm

Have you forgotten the way I was blasted for saying something about anti-immigration extremists? Certain people automatically assumed I was talking about everyone who opposes illegal immigration, whereas I was actually referring to the extremist people who oppose all immigration (supporters of Trump's "muslim ban" etc) and the SLF members who intentionally misread my middle-of-the road position as a direct attack on their beliefs instantly went on the attack.

They just thought you were taking a view they believe to be a universally held right wing position, which sort of backs up my earlier post. Just because they were wrong to do so doesn't mean you should just fold and go silent, especially if you can use those self-described abilities to provide "sense and political fair play" to a discussion. That's what keeps discussions interesting.

Alan

9-9-21, 3:54pm

I can't imagine there are too many black people who are supportive of Elder's position on slavery reparations.That depends upon if you approach his views from a legal standpoint or a moral one, and I can't imagine simply assuming black people can't appreciate the value of property rights. If you take emotion out of the debate it might prove to be an interesting discussion, but I suspect that's not possible.

jp1

9-9-21, 4:20pm

That depends upon if you approach his views from a legal standpoint or a moral one, and I can't imagine simply assuming black people can't appreciate the value of property rights. If you take emotion out of the debate it might prove to be an interesting discussion, but I suspect that's not possible.

Do we get to first deduct the cost of reparations for former slaves and for the union’s cost of the civil war from the slave owner reparations?

LDAHL

9-9-21, 4:28pm

Do we get to first deduct the cost of reparations for former slaves and for the union’s cost of the civil war from the slave owner reparations?

I think the endless complications, historical, legal, even genealogical or otherwise highlight what an absurdity any notion of a fair reparations bill would be.

iris lilies

9-9-21, 5:37pm

An interesting question. At least one California media outlet has labeled him as the black face of white supremacy so I guess there's some acknowledgement of his race, but that same media didn't seem to see any sign of racism when a white woman in a gorilla mask threw an egg at him yesterday. That sort of surprised me because I've been led to believe that all negative actions/reactions against a person of color is proof of racism and white supremacy. Of course, it's possible that being a Republican trumps being black once then candidate Biden told us that if you don't vote Democratic you're not black, which seems to be a pretty well accepted principle within the party.

Race relations are tricky since you never really know what the rules are, for example Democrats and national media didn't seem to notice President Biden referring to a black FEMA official as "boy" on live television a week or so ago. I feel pretty confident that no Republican could get away with that. It's all so confusing.

Ok, so today I zapped a troublesome Nextdoor post that equated speeding ATVs downtown with golf cart drivers. I zapped it on the basis of Nextdoor’s anti-stereotyping policy. In our city’s race war it’s probably easy to identify which demographic has taken over downtown streets late at night running loud and dangerously fast ATV vehicles and which demographic is riding around our gentrified historic neighborhoods in quiet electric golf carts. Which is not to say the golf carts aren’t sometimes dangerous because of their slow speed, but…

And then today I read on another Forum a post about “testosterone poisoning” and I thought to myself oh yeah, if I turn that around and mention something about “estrogen poisoning, “that will not go over well.

Stereotyping and mean-spiritedness is stereotyping and mean-spiritedness even when the woke crowd does it.

As for reparations, that shit is just dumb.

GeorgeParker

9-9-21, 7:08pm

They just thought you were taking a view they believe to be a universally held right wing position, which sort of backs up my earlier post. Just because they were wrong to do so doesn't mean you should just fold and go silent, especially if you can use those self-described abilities to provide "sense and political fair play" to a discussion. That's what keeps discussions interesting.Actually they were accusing me of having an extreme left-wing pro-illegal immigration opinion and parroting the "liberal media". And when I clarified that I was talking about people who are against legal immigration, I was told that if that was what I meant I should have said it that way, as though every time I say anything I should automatically add enough adjectives so that no one can ever possible misunderstand. I mean like "licensed drivers" and "registered Republicans" and "native born Americans". (I'm summarizing for brevity, but you get the picture.) But this is an unmoderated forum and that's the way it is. So even though I may from time to time make a brief political comment when I've read an untrue cliche one time too many, I'd much rather I stand safely on the sidelines and watch you guys pointlessly fight with no chance of anyone ever changing anyone elses mind.

Alan

9-9-21, 7:19pm

I'd much rather I stand safely on the sidelines and watch you guys pointlessly fight with no chance of anyone ever changing anyone elses mind.
Oh, I see. You think the purpose of discussion is to convert the unconvertible rather than simply present another view. I can see how that might be frustrating. ;)

jp1

9-15-21, 12:17am

Larry Elder on the phone with CA’s Secretary of State tonight ‘I just need you to find 2.8 million votes. I’ll take care of the rest…’

flowerseverywhere

9-15-21, 4:43am

ApatheticNoMore

9-15-21, 5:08am

And the recall was not even ABOUT ANYTHING pretty much. The french laundry, that's not enough for anything.

There was no single candidate supported by the recall supporters, the Republican party such as exists (barely in CA) didn't back anyone. There were no issues that would ever appeal but to a tiny minority of the states voters. They kept thinking running on super red state issues would play in California, rather than even trying to broaden appeal to ANY other group. As if all that was necessary was to win a few rural areas, uh that's not where most of the population is.

Newsom is probably more popular than ever in a way that lightweight no way deserves, but run a ridiculous recall against him and yea. And what message would anyone send by voting "yes" on the recall? I don't even know. That restrictions were too strict? Hospitals literally became overwhelmed because Newsom choose xmas shopping over human life. Last winter Newsom WAS De(ath) Santis. But there was no vaccine then? Yes exactly, that's why they should have shut stuff down when cases were getting out of hand, and didn't, because there was no vaccine to help! But people want us to vote that the measures taken were too severe? I don't even know what other completely dumb issues were ran on. The laundry (er not french) list I saw was ridiculous, gas taxes, water taxes, what a bunch of nonsense. Taxes on scarce or polluting resources can make a lot of sense just from an encouraging conservation perspective, never even mind raising revenue.

But if Newsom becomes President someday I do sincerely apologize for not recalling him and inflicting him on the world. Just the recall was -r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.

iris lilies

9-15-21, 10:40am

$300 million of taxpayer money for the recall

https://abc7news.com/ca-recall-election-cost-of-gavin-newsom/11021178/

I often wonder how much taxpayer money this country is wasting on recounts, impeachment’s, recalls, suing back and forth on abortion, voting rights, gay rights, religion, claims of election fraud and so on. Imagine if all that money could go towards bettering our country instead of tearing it down and turning citizens against each other. .
I agree with this. Add state ballot constitutional amendments to the list, those things that try to be law. If state legislatures would take back and use their power appropriately, we wouldn’t have to be presented with these things on ballots.

catherine

9-15-21, 10:55am

I've pretty much given up on American civilization at this point.

Hear, hear!

GeorgeParker

9-15-21, 12:04pm

Oh, I see. You think the purpose of discussion is to convert the unconvertible rather than simply present another view. I can see how that might be frustrating. ;)No, I think the purpose of discussion is to exchange differing viewpoints and encourage both people to think more deeply about the subject, even if it just makes someone think more deeply about their own position in an effort to justify it.

The unconvertible who won't even consider the possibility that there may be some truth in the opposite position aren't worth talking to, let alone arguing with, because neither they nor you will learn anything from the encounter.

Alan

9-15-21, 12:57pm

The unconvertible who won't even consider the possibility that there may be some truth in the opposite position aren't worth talking to, let alone arguing with, because neither they nor you will learn anything from the encounter.
I can see that in a one-on-one personal conversation but not in a public facing forum such as this. Those discussions are read by others who may find value in the give and take, especially if the active participants are using facts, logic and rational thought as part of the debate.

If someone only engages in discussions/debates if they're guaranteed a win via changing one particular person's view on the subject they have missed an opportunity to enlighten many others, even on a small forum such as ours. As an example, at this very moment there are 8 members logged on and perusing/reading the various threads, but there are also over 100 guests doing the same, that number will probably rise to 500 or more during evening hours. By engaging, even without the benefit of changing your opponent's mind, you have the opportunity to influence others with your slant on whatever the subject may be.

Of course, if you're not using facts, logic or rational thought processes to engage your opponent, you probably are wasting your time and may very well be better off not engaging. Just my 2 cents.

GeorgeParker

9-15-21, 1:53pm

especially if the active participants are using facts, logic and rational thought as part of the debate.Aye, there's the rub!

I invite you to take a close look at most of the political and covid-related discussions in the SLF that get out of hand and score each message as to where it fits on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and whether it actually advances the discussion and adds information or just echos what has already been said. Most of the time I see a lot of heat and very little light in such discussions, Your opinion may differ.
3965

Alan

9-15-21, 3:11pm

Aye, there's the rub!

I invite you to take a close look at most of the political and covid-related discussions in the SLF that get out of hand and score each message as to where it fits on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and whether it actually advances the discussion and adds information or just echos what has already been said. Most of the time I see a lot of heat and very little light in such discussions, Your opinion may differ.
3965
Ha, you're preaching to the choir there Georgie, the vast majority of all philosophically based discussions are based on emotion, bias and hyperbole. In a good discussion others will counter that with facts, logic and rational thought, not necessarily to change your opponents mind but rather for those non-participatory readers who may benefit from it. If you just want to score points on your philosophical foe, you're doing it wrong.

GeorgeParker

9-15-21, 5:30pm

the vast majority of all philosophically based discussions are based on emotion, bias and hyperbole. In a good discussion others will counter that with facts, logic and rational thought, not necessarily to change your opponents mind but rather for those non-participatory readers who may benefit from it.I agree with that 100%.

And I would agree with this 100%

If someone just wants to score points on their philosophical foe, they're doing it wrong.if you had said someone, their, and they're.

Alan

9-15-21, 5:51pm

I agree with that 100%.

And I would agree with this 100%
if you had said someone, their, and they're.
Yes, but I was subtly directing that comment to you since you've mentioned several times that you do not wish to engage in many discussions if you believe there to be no opportunity to change a participant's mind. My last several posts on that subject have been an effort to show you the benefits of doing so anyway. Of course it also applies to they and them but it was primarily directed at you. Maybe I was too subtle. :laff:

GeorgeParker

9-15-21, 7:01pm

Yes, but I was subtly directing that comment to you since you've mentioned several times that you do not wish to engage in many discussions if you believe there to be no opportunity to change a participant's mind. My last several posts on that subject have been an effort to show you the benefits of doing so anyway.OK then, I'll clarify my position. I see no point in participating in threads about acrimonious or inflammatory subjects if there seems to be very little chance of changing the mind of any of the participants. I believe it's only worth making myself a target or fighting a battle if the potential good outweighs the potential annoyance participating will cause me.

Alan

9-15-21, 7:32pm

jp1

9-15-21, 8:44pm

Larry Elder on the phone with CA’s Secretary of State tonight ‘I just need you to find 2.8 million votes. I’ll take care of the rest…’

To be fair after initially claiming voter fraud before the results even started being released Larry Elder has graciously admitted that he lost.

Rogar

9-15-21, 9:53pm

OK then, I'll clarify my position. I see no point in participating in threads about acrimonious or inflammatory subjects if there seems to be very little chance of changing the mind of any of the participants. I believe it's only worth making myself a target or fighting a battle if the potential good outweighs the potential annoyance participating will cause me.

I sometimes enjoy reading or discussing contrarian ideas just to get a better understanding why people think a certain way. That seems to have value on it's own without any intentions of changing minds.

But I agree. If those sorts of things annoy you and you don't see the purpose, you should avoid them.

jp1

9-16-21, 5:53am

I am not at all surprised by this. A county’s level of vaccination was a good indicator of whether they supported newsom in the election.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-15/california-recall-results-newsom-coronavirus-vaccination-rates?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

And equally not surprising, the current covid heat map for California also closely mirrors the election results. (The blood red county just south of the NE corner of the state is Lassen County the least vaccinated and the most strongly in favor of recalling Newsom.)

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1438233575132962826?s=20