PDA

View Full Version : Gray Davis Recall election?


macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 10:04 PM
The recall has sufficient verified signatures to go forward. Apparently, I was wrong in saying Davis could kill it by resigning. Now, the question is who will run on all sides.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 10:16 PM
terry mcauliffe announced last week the dems wouldn't put up a candidate. so, in effect, davis will be the "candidate."

though it's a risky strategy, i think it's pretty clever. at this point, i'm leaning towards the predication that davis will prevail, but i don't have much confidence in that predication.

Ugg
Jul 23, 2003, 10:25 PM
That is a very good question and the law that governs the recall process is a mess. Since it has never been used it is also uncharted territory.

DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/) Has a summary of the issue and the Lt. Governor may well have a shot at the Governorship with the CA Supreme Court ultimately deciding who gets the office. As with most referendums or petitions, the language is clear in regards to what the proposers want but horribly unclear about the law allows.

Personally, I think anyone who wants the job at this point in time has some major screws loose. The worst economy in forever, a lingering energy crisis mess, the most unequal property tax bills in the world, you name it, we got it.

This would be a real stupid time for any Rep. who truly wants the office to get on the ticket. Whoever gets the office will always be viewed as an usurper who got in based on a minority vote and will be voted out in the next election.

Ok, so who will be on the ticket? I've not a clue. Arnold won't be, Issa probably will be and the Dems are trying to not have anyone at all in hopes that people will vote to keep Davis in.

Rower_CPU
Jul 23, 2003, 10:43 PM
I think the Dems not putting forward a candidate besides Davis speaks volumes of their confidence in the result - whether they are correct or not remains to be seen. Keeping a united front will definitely help to promote a positive image to the voters.

At this point, though, I'm more upset at the fact that the recall is taking away time/energy from finalizing this year's budget. If I, and every other state employee, receive minimum wage paychecks due to the lack of a budget, someone will pay at the polls.

Who that is will become clear as this situation plays out.

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 09:33 AM
-All

I think this is a good time to say this:

The voters of California duly elected Davis, and as long as he doesn't do something illegal, have to live with his governorship whether they like him or not.

I find second-guessing democracy abhorrent, and completely opposed to very idea behind the democratic process in the first place.

This should not be happening.

IJ Reilly
Jul 24, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I think the Dems not putting forward a candidate besides Davis speaks volumes of their confidence in the result - whether they are correct or not remains to be seen. Keeping a united front will definitely help to promote a positive image to the voters.

I don't know how much it speaks of confidence -- Davis is radioactive, even among California Democrats. This strategy speaks more of how the recall law is written. To run a credible Democrat in this election would be tantamount to throwing in the towel on Davis, and that would look very, very bad for the party. They really don't have much of a choice.

Issa will definitely run. He bought this recall with his own money, and will doubtless try to buy the governor's office with even more of it. Like I said earlier, non-millionaires need not apply. Old Hiram Johnston must be spinning in his tomb... this can't be what he had in mind.

macfan
Jul 24, 2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-All

I think this is a good time to say this:

The voters of California duly elected Davis, and as long as he doesn't do something illegal, have to live with his governorship whether they like him or not.

I find second-guessing democracy abhorrent, and completely opposed to very idea behind the democratic process in the first place.

This should not be happening.

Actually, they don't have to live with him. They duly elected him, and they have duly recalled him for another election to see if he will remain in office or be replaced by another. This is a law that has been around for a very long time in California. Whether one likes the recall or not, it is an exercise in democracy, not a second-guessing of democracy. I think he has a pretty good chance of remaining in office.

Ugg
Jul 24, 2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Actually, they don't have to live with him. They duly elected him, and they have duly recalled him for another election to see if he will remain in office or be replaced by another. This is a law that has been around for a very long time in California. Whether one likes the recall or not, it is an exercise in democracy, not a second-guessing of democracy. I think he has a pretty good chance of remaining in office.

It may be an exercise of the democratic process but that process in CA is very, very flawed. Fewer than 1 million signatures were needed for this recall out of a population of ~35 million. Not all democratic policies are good or healthy and I think that it is time that some of those processes and policies are reviewed. The electoral college, campaign finance, recalls, referendums all need to be looked at through the eyes of today not those of past centuries.

I agree that he will probably remain in office but it will cost the state about $1 per person to accomplish this.

IJ Reilly
Jul 24, 2003, 07:16 PM
Not all "exercises in democracy" are equal. This one happens to be a very sickly exercise in democracy, for reasons I have already stated.

To provide some historical perspective, this law was put on the books during the era when California was essentially a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The government was rife with the most base kinds of graft and corruption. It took about twenty years of a steadily gathering progressive movement to wrest control of state government from the greedy corporate interests. Laws such as the recall, as well as the initiative and referendum system, were put on the books for this reason. In recent years, both have been seriously abused to promote the very same interests they were designed to mitigate against.

No matter the outcome of this recall election, the result will be bad for the state of California. As one who makes his home and living in the state, I see no reason to be neutral on the question of whether this is a healthy exercise in democracy, when clearly, no good can come of it.

patrick0brien
Jul 24, 2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Fewer than 1 million signatures were needed for this recall out of a population of ~35 million.

-Ugg

Actually the number is arrived at as a percentage of the voting public from the last election.

California's recall law was passed in 1911 by Republican Gov. Johnson, to battle the corruption IJ Reilly mentions. But California isn't the only state with recall provisions, there are a bunch more - 17. It's just that California only requires 12%, little less than half of what is required in these other states (25%). This is why the recall needed only 897,158 signatures to force it.

It's legal, and has precedent, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.

According to those numbers, only 7,476,317 persons voted in the previous election. Out of 35mil?

Further impetus to get the vote out.

Rower_CPU
Jul 25, 2003, 01:08 AM
This should make things interesting.

CA Senators Announce Budget Deal (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20030724-1847-ca-statebudget.html)

It's not a done deal, but we're a heck of a lot closer to having a budget very soon. :)

Sayhey
Jul 25, 2003, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No matter the outcome of this recall election, the result will be bad for the state of California. As one who makes his home and living in the state, I see no reason to be neutral on the question of whether this is a healthy exercise in democracy, when clearly, no good can come of it.

I think the California voters will be smart enough to recognize this hijack of the electoral system for what it is. Most folks don't like their elected leaders thrown out early without a very good reason. I know I can't stand Davis, but I'll work against this recall.

IJ Reilly, When I read your location in limbo I knew we must be neighbors.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I think the California voters will be smart enough to recognize this hijack of the electoral system for what it is. Most folks don't like their elected leaders thrown out early without a very good reason. I know I can't stand Davis, but I'll work against this recall.

IJ Reilly, When I read your location in limbo I knew we must be neighbors.

Many years ago, I put "Limbo, Void Co." under my name on a name tag I wore at a conference, if only to see how many people actually look at those things. Quite a few, I learned.

Anyway, snap elections are unpredictable beasts. Dollars spent in the big media markets will be the deciding factor I suspect, because there's really no time to gear up an actual campaign. It's going to be very nasty; that much is almost certain.

I will also work against the recall in any way I can, and this comes from a California voter who could not hold his nose tightly enough to cast a ballot for Gray Davis last year. If our thinking is any indication, this recall has the potential to backfire on its perpetrators.

zimv20
Jul 25, 2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly

I will also work against the recall in any way I can

otoh, i believe the recall movement is reflecting a lot of anger among voters. not just at davis, but at what's going on in the nation.

no one's going to be able to fix CA in the next year. i think this anger will sustain itself into the 2004 presidential election.

if a republican gets the CA gov's seat, and that anger is still present, it seems to me that that would help the dems, both locally and nationally.

Sayhey
Jul 25, 2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
otoh, i believe the recall movement is reflecting a lot of anger among voters. not just at davis, but at what's going on in the nation.

no one's going to be able to fix CA in the next year. i think this anger will sustain itself into the 2004 presidential election.

if a republican gets the CA gov's seat, and that anger is still present, it seems to me that that would help the dems, both locally and nationally.

The goal of putting a republican into the Gov's seat is all tied to the 2004 election. The Bushies want all of the largest states in republican hands going into that vote, because of the many things a Gov can do to support a candidate. There has been a convergence of interests on the part of a right-wing nut (Issa) and the larger republican party. Lots and lots of money will be poured into this race by republicans nationally. I'm convinced that organiziations on the ground (ie unions, civil rights groups, etc) can and will counterbalance this effort.

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2003, 12:45 PM
Yesterday the LA Times ran a humorous op-ed piece by Bill Maher about the recall election. He advocated Arnie for the job, as the only candidate who could explain the Bush homeland security policies to Californians in the original German.

zimv20
Jul 25, 2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Arnie [...] the only candidate who could explain the Bush homeland security policies to Californians in the original German.

sweet

edit:

found the original quote (it's a bit different):

Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German.


i think mr. maher makes a valid point here:

Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.

So you can see the problem: Gray Davis.


link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher24jul24,1,2626362.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2003, 02:08 PM
I was paraphrasing from memory because I was too lazy to look up the original piece. Thanks for finding it -- the way Maher said it was funnier.

bond003
Jul 28, 2003, 11:51 PM
It is unlikely the White House is too eager to head first into this recall. Davis can survive this rather easily. His re-elections is vital for the democrats, therefore you will see millions poured into the race and there are too many republicans running.

Arnold is a shoe in, but the White House has better plans for him next year. They can deal with a weak Davis, but would rather take Boxer out next year.

Sayhey
Jul 29, 2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by bond003 Arnold is a shoe in, but the White House has better plans for him next year. They can deal with a weak Davis, but would rather take Boxer out next year.

California voters have a particularly rich history of dealing with "shoe ins" - we don't elect them. Nixon, Kathleen Brown, Riordan, and many others were unbeatable and lost. Perhaps we will elected a candidate totally devoid of qualification, we did it in '66, but my bet is Arnold should stick to making bad movies.

IJ Reilly
Jul 29, 2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
California voters have a particularly rich history of dealing with "shoe ins" - we don't elect them. Nixon, Kathleen Brown, Riordan, and many others were unbeatable and lost. Perhaps we will elected a candidate totally devoid of qualification, we did it in '66, but my bet is Arnold should stick to making bad movies.

Good memory for some forgotten faces in California politics -- but don't fail to add Tom Bradley to your list of "shoe-ins." Even Ronald Reagan didn't go straight from the backlots to the governor's mansion (where it turned out Nancy didn't want to live after all -- but that's another story). He prepared himself for politics. Arnie, on the other hand, is a complete political neophyte and isn't preparing himself for anything but Terminator IV.