Thank you for voting No
Sanity has prevailed
Sanity has prevailed
Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
vansmack wrote:Pump the breaks a little. I'm not sure "very very blue state" reaffirms they are "very very blue" is a model for the midterms generically. Perhaps its a blueprint for holding as many congressional seats in California and possibly the house by extension but I don't think there's a blueprint here that's applicable to Georgia, for example.
may have just laid out a blueprint for the midterms…
yeah the biggest risk and why these recalls are effective is that people don't come out to vote (again) in an off year election
he had high approval, but with a low turnout…things could go the wrong way fast
the gripe is the state spend almost $300 mill on this and there is an election coming up in just a year
but I have to imagine the amount of money spent by gavin and the others was also in the millions and just a waste of everyones time and money
the 12% thing needs to be removed, it needs to be 51%
Just absurd
but I do agree with Juli, no way we can draw any conclusions from this abnormality of an election
he had high approval, but with a low turnout…things could go the wrong way fast
the gripe is the state spend almost $300 mill on this and there is an election coming up in just a year
but I have to imagine the amount of money spent by gavin and the others was also in the millions and just a waste of everyones time and money
the 12% thing needs to be removed, it needs to be 51%
Just absurd
but I do agree with Juli, no way we can draw any conclusions from this abnormality of an election
Side-Mod wrote:I think the point of these recalls, more often than not, is just to bloody up the officeholder a bit and drain their coffers. Newsom weathering this, then winning reelection next year, then hypothetically running for President in 2024 if Biden is only going to do one term – I do not think this will happen – seems quite daunting/exhausting to resources.
but I have to imagine the amount of money spent by gavin and the others was also in the millions and just a waste of everyones time and money
the 12% thing needs to be removed, it needs to be 51%
Just absurd
I don't think a recall threshold of 51% being reasonable but it needs to be a lot higher than 12%.
Julian, wrote:
I don't think a recall threshold of 51% being reasonable but it needs to be a lot higher than 12%.
ok put your name with a number then.
I think if the majority of the states population thinks the gov should be recalled…well then I think maybe it's time for a special election
other than that…wait your fucking turn until the next election…that is how democracy works
Side-Mod wrote:Logistically, getting 51% of registered voters or the population in general to fill out a form seems virtually impossible.Julian, wrote:
I don't think a recall threshold of 51% being reasonable but it needs to be a lot higher than 12%.
ok put your name with a number then.
I think if the majority of the states population thinks the gov should be recalled…well then I think maybe it's time for a special election
other than that…wait your fucking turn until the next election…that is how democracy works
IDK, 30-40%. Clearly the threshold needs to be higher but also not impossible.
Julian, wrote:Logistically, getting 51% of registered voters or the population in general to fill out a form seems virtually impossible.
Seems perfect to me, if the Gov is doing that bad of a job and people can't wait, should be difficult but not impossible
If they are elected by a majority, why should you be recalled by a minority??
hey do you know what the threshold is in VA?
https://virginiaconservatives.net/recall-radical-ralph-northam
damn, va it's only 10%
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_gubernatorial_recall_provisions
Virginia N/A Virginia Code Title 24.2-233 to 24.2-238 Neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office, or upon conviction of a drug-related misdemeanor or a misdemeanor involving a "hate crime" (§24.2-233) 10 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election No time limit Recall trial
this is something you won't hear me say much…but Kansas got it right 40 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election
20% is a fine enough number. They wouldn't even have gotten the 12% had they not been granted an extension because of the pandemic (5 previous efforts to gather enough signatures failed before this one succeeded) and had enough "angry moms" about schools not being open sign on. In the end they opted not to vote for him being replaced.
What would be more advantageous to changing the recall structure in addition to raising the threshold would be (1) having a criteria for recall in addition to the signature gathering, (2) make the Lt Governor automatically replace the Governor so the other party won't do it just to have a chance or (3) if successful. make the election to replace the Governor a separate election and not part of the recall.
Any one of these would protect the democratic process and not advantage the other party who are wasting everyone's time and money with these longshot bids.
What would be more advantageous to changing the recall structure in addition to raising the threshold would be (1) having a criteria for recall in addition to the signature gathering, (2) make the Lt Governor automatically replace the Governor so the other party won't do it just to have a chance or (3) if successful. make the election to replace the Governor a separate election and not part of the recall.
Any one of these would protect the democratic process and not advantage the other party who are wasting everyone's time and money with these longshot bids.
vansmack wrote: make the Lt Governor automatically replace the Governor so the other party won't do it just to have a chance or
if successful. make the election to replace the Governor a separate election and not part of the recall.
I agree with both of these…seems silly to vote for a recall and then have to vote for the person
so if you vote no for recall, were you also supposed to vote for a candidate still
I think I heard "blank' was the choice people were supposed to make
Side-Mod wrote:
I think I heard "blank' was the choice people were supposed to make
Correct. Governor Newsom's strategy was to vote "No" and don't vote for a candidate, a relic of the Gray Davis Recall in the early 2000's where voters were confused if voting no and then selecting Cruz Bustamante would nullify their vote. It worked as less than 20% of the "No" voters cast a vote for a candidate.
It should be noted that this strategy was not well received by the Democrat strategists in CA.
recall cost $276 million
1.7 million people signed the recall petition
so do we make the CAGOP pay, or should we wend a bill for $163 to each signer? you want it, you pay for it.
1.7 million people signed the recall petition
so do we make the CAGOP pay, or should we wend a bill for $163 to each signer? you want it, you pay for it.
vansmack wrote:
What would be more advantageous to changing the recall structure in addition to raising the threshold would be (1) having a criteria for recall in addition to the signature gathering, (2) make the Lt Governor automatically replace the Governor so the other party won't do it just to have a chance or (3) if successful. make the election to replace the Governor a separate election and not part of the recall.
hottest take in this thread, in a while. bravo.
vansmack wrote:This just seems the most logical.
(2) make the Lt Governor automatically replace the Governor so the other party won't do it just to have a chance
sweetcell wrote:
recall cost $276 million
1.7 million people signed the recall petition
so do we make the CAGOP pay, or should we wend a bill for $163 to each signer? you want it, you pay for it.
Never happen, for the same reason my employer gets sued all the time and though we win most cases that go to trial, we still end up paying the opposing sides attorney fees more times than not. The courts do not want to dissuade anyone from bringing a legitimate suit against deeper pockets simply based on money…
But they certainly can make the reasons for doing such an act slightly harder than "I simply don't like the person"….I think changes to the recall process will inevitably be on the CA ballot either next year or in 2024.
vansmack wrote:If you're winning most the cases that go to trial but you're paying sanctions/attorney fees "more times than not," are you suggesting that you all are winning cases but then being required to pay the losing side's attorney costs in some significant # of instances? Why would this be?
Never happen, for the same reason my employer gets sued all the time and though we win most cases that go to trial, we still end up paying the opposing sides attorney fees more times than not.
Julian, wrote:vansmack wrote:If you're winning most the cases that go to trial but you're paying sanctions/attorney fees "more times than not," are you suggesting that you all are winning cases but then being required to pay the losing side's attorney costs in some significant # of instances? Why would this be?
Never happen, for the same reason my employer gets sued all the time and though we win most cases that go to trial, we still end up paying the opposing sides attorney fees more times than not.
yeah, thought there was some voodoo math in that one
Julian, wrote:vansmack wrote:If you're winning most the cases that go to trial but you're paying sanctions/attorney fees "more times than not," are you suggesting that you all are winning cases but then being required to pay the losing side's attorney costs in some significant # of instances? Why would this be?
Never happen, for the same reason my employer gets sued all the time and though we win most cases that go to trial, we still end up paying the opposing sides attorney fees more times than not.
That is exactly what I'm saying. We had one case that went on for almost 10 years - we lost in Superior Court, won in Appellate court and the Appellate court ruling was upheld by the CA Supreme Court and we were still ordered to pay the attorney's fees for the other party. Absolutely mind-boggling.
vansmack wrote:Do all of these cases where you all "win" but pay the other sides attorneys involve you losing initially and winning on appeal?Julian, wrote:vansmack wrote:If you're winning most the cases that go to trial but you're paying sanctions/attorney fees "more times than not," are you suggesting that you all are winning cases but then being required to pay the losing side's attorney costs in some significant # of instances? Why would this be?
Never happen, for the same reason my employer gets sued all the time and though we win most cases that go to trial, we still end up paying the opposing sides attorney fees more times than not.
That is exactly what I'm saying. We had one case that went on for almost 10 years - we lost in Superior Court, won in Appellate court and the Appellate court ruling was upheld by the CA Supreme Court and we were still ordered to pay the attorney's fees for the other party. Absolutely mind-boggling.
Julian, wrote:Do all of these cases where you all "win" but pay the other sides attorneys involve you losing initially and winning on appeal?
Nope, but good question. That one just happened to be the largest attorney fee decision (six-figures).
Generally, if the lawsuit is frivolous, it's gets thrown out and doesn't make it to trial. On the rare occasion that the ridiculous ones make it to trial, we don't owe fees. But many times on a legitimate question of the law, the ruling will go in our favor, but we will owe attorneys fees to the other side.
vansmack wrote:Is this a California thing? I have NEVER heard of this. We've never ever ever paid the opposing attorneys fees after winning a trial (although virtually every action brought against my company is frivolous where people do not understand how "at will" employment works).Julian, wrote:Do all of these cases where you all "win" but pay the other sides attorneys involve you losing initially and winning on appeal?
Nope, but good question. That one just happened to be the largest attorney fee decision (six-figures).
Generally, if the lawsuit is frivolous, it's gets thrown out and doesn't make it to trial. On the rare occasion that the ridiculous ones make it to trial, we don't owe fees. But many times on a legitimate question of the law, the ruling will go in our favor, but we will owe attorneys fees to the other side.