The Biden-Harris Era

[Big Magilla]

"Our constitutional crisis is already here"

Compelling, terrifying essay from Robert Kagan

I'd like to read the article but I'm not paying for a subscription to be able to do so.

[Okri]

"Our constitutional crisis is already here"

Compelling, terrifying essay from Robert Kagan

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
I'm surprise you griped about the $300 million price tag and the suggested a system that would cost $600 million instead just because you don't like the animosity that might generate between executive and vice-executive. Sometimes it's Obama/Biden, sometimes it's Kennedy/Johnson.

I think this response minimizes my larger points. I clearly didn't say it was "just" because of the animosity between the two. That was only one concern.

To your other points, you're taking my price tag comment out of context. I said if it led to a change in campaigning, I'd call it money well spent. But more importantly, you're ignoring what I'm saying about increasing or decreasing direct democracy. If you want to make the argument that as an interim representative, only one possible option is all the democracy that the voters need and more cost-effective. But if there's a real referendum on leadership, why not let the people decide who should be their governor?

Again: after the signatures required has been raised to a higher, non-insane number (which I've listed elsewhere).

But to answer your question: I am perfectly comfortable with a costly recall election if the threshold for triggering one is higher and it produces a more democratic result that more accurately reflects the will of the people.

OscarGuy wrote
As to the prospects of losing the low information, conspiracy-minded voters from the Dem to the Republican party, I say good riddance. I also say welcome to the suburban women who are fleeing the Republican party in droves. The Pubs think they can build a coalition out of extremist evangelicals and white men. They are wrong and as both of those groups diminish, the Democrats stand in a better position to capitalize on it.

That's not my point. My point is that I'm concerned about low-information, unreliable voters for us becoming misinformed, reliable voters against us.

To compensate for being too long-winded in my explanation before (which I was; this acquaintance triggers me), I'll be more short-winded now:

In CA, we just went through another election that saw an increase in Latino (men) support for Trump. It's not a great trend.

And I just don't share your confidence that saying good riddance to any bloc of voters is necessarily the best mindset when we don't know the long-term effects of the most culturally disorienting year of my lifetime. In 2012, I thought the GOP was DOA and I was very arrogant about the future. I was wrong.

[OscarGuy]

I'm surprise you griped about the $300 million price tag and the suggested a system that would cost $600 million instead just because you don't like the animosity that might generate between executive and vice-executive. Sometimes it's Obama/Biden, sometimes it's Kennedy/Johnson.

As to the prospects of losing the low information, conspiracy-minded voters from the Dem to the Republican party, I say good riddance. I also say welcome to the suburban women who are fleeing the Republican party in droves. The Pubs think they can build a coalition out of extremist evangelicals and white men. They are wrong and as both of those groups diminish, the Democrats stand in a better position to capitalize on it.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I think this is absolutely correct. We talk a lot about how the parties area asymmetrically polarized -- that Republicans (on the whole) fall far more on the extreme edges than Democrats do (and, no: proposing universal Medicare is not a similarly-extreme counterpart to "let Republican legislatures decide who carried the state in the electoral college"). But we don't talk about how the parties' voters are also asymmetrical in how they view one another.

I'm not sure I've shared this anecdote but I have a friend who voted for Trump in 2020. Happily. He did it for two reasons: he just thinks Democrats are out to get him. He's conspiratorial in his thinking. He thinks that the vaccine, BLM, all of it, is some kind of shadowy agenda that doesn't understand or trust, and it turned into voting Republican for the first time. He supported the recall. He'll never vote Democrat again.

To be clear: he's not a close friend. He's someone I was roommates with a decade ago. We have a similar group of friends. And so he's someone I see on occasion. When I first met him as a roommate (2009), he didn't know who Joe Biden was. I told him "He's the Vice President." His response was "I don't know the Vice President. I only know the main one."

Back then, this guy's vote was not reliable in turnout but it was reliable in affiliation. When he did vote, he voted for Obama, for the Democrats, because they seemed normal and the other side seemed crazy. But now? His vote is reliable against us.

On the issues: he's supports abortion rights, easier access to healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, green and renewable energy, believes in climate change, LGBT rights... I could go on. I would say that the only area where he isn't Dem party-line is with immigration but to be honest, Open Borders rhetoric has him confused.

There is no reason why his vote should not be gettable. But because of the fallout from the very disorienting events of 2020, he can't wait to vote against us. And that's what scares me: low-information, unreliable voters who have become bad-information, very reliable voters.

I hate that politics have become this but basically, we just have run to run campaigns on making the other side seem scary and crazy. That's it. We have to wave that bloody shirt time and time again. I hate that our elections aren't about policy but if policy isn't going to turnout votes for Democrats and if policy isn't going to change Republicans minds, then I'd rather win a stupid race than lose one.

I'll start: a vote for Ron Johnson is a vote for Trump. He's also a traitor who supported the coup. He shouldn't be running for Senate. He should be in jail.

[Mister Tee]

Anyway, it's a shame that CA taxpayers have to pay $300 mil for Democrats to learn a valuable lesson: whatever you do, make the election about the other guy. But if they really learn it, and make it a national strategy, I'll call it money well spent on my part. Because if every midterm Republican candidate is going to be from the cult of Trump, that means: 1) they need to be compared to him, and 2) there is absolutely some crazy thing they said in the past like "Slaveowners should get reparations for losing their slaves" and it should be used against them.

I think this is absolutely correct. We talk a lot about how the parties area asymmetrically polarized -- that Republicans (on the whole) fall far more on the extreme edges than Democrats do (and, no: proposing universal Medicare is not a similarly-extreme counterpart to "let Republican legislatures decide who carried the state in the electoral college"). But we don't talk about how the parties' voters are also asymmetrical in how they view one another. We had an election last Fall where it couldn't have been more obvious that one candidate was unfit for office -- the permanent DC establishment (in the person of Bob Woodward) rose up to point that out. And still 74 million people voted for the unfit guy, because, in their propagandized minds, no matter what, a Democrat had to be worse. Democrats have been loath to play by those same metrics, making every Republican The Enemy the way GOPers do to them -- partly because they fantasize about winning over the dwindling number of middle-roaders, but also out of a general "we want to work with these people after election day". Which, in a functioning democracy, would be desirable. But, in what we've got, Susan Collins isn't more than a tick or two away from Donald Trump, and the few items on which she might differ don't offset the power she gives the entire Trump agenda by providing a vote for Mitch McConnell as potential majority leader (or the power she gives Joe Manchin as the 50th rather than 51st Senate vote).

Shorter: Democrats need to come around to campaigning against every Republican as enabling the entire Republican agenda, because that's the fact. And Newsom's resounding success at it should encourage Dem candidates in Texas and Florida to do the same.

Statistical/historical irony: Half a century ago, party identification in this country was very strong -- upwards of 70% of citizens identified as either Dem or Pub. But when candidates came along that were, fairly or not, perceived as too far from the mainstream -- Goldwater and McGovern -- each lost by thunderous, 60-40 landslides. These days, voters' party loyalty has dimished substantially, and Independent is perennially threatening to overtake either. Yet, in two recent elections where the party in power was an obvious failure -- 2008 and 2020 -- 7.25% and 4.5% were the best the out-party could do. We're less loyal by name but more loyal in fact than we've been since the 1880s.

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
The suggestion I've seen that probably has the most weight is: if a governor is recalled, then the Lt. Gov. replaces them. Simple and in a state like California, Republicans won't keep doing the recall thing if they no longer have a way of putting their own man in.

I've read two arguments against this approach that are worth considering:
1. It might create a more antagonistic relationship between Gov and Lt. Gov.
2. It decreases direct democracy among the voters. If the people truly want a referendum on a governor's leadership, they should be allowed more than a single designated replacement.

An idea that I've heard that I support is a three-part process:
1. Obviously, a higher number of signatures required to trigger a recall.
2. A recall ballot asks "Should the governor be recalled?" (more than 50% and he's gone), and "Which candidate should be nominated as replacement?" (or some similar wording).
3. If more than 50% of the voters want the governor gone, we have a separate election a month (or whatever) later featuring the two leading candidates of whatever party. Basically, CA's jungle primary system.

Maybe the result is one Democrat and one Republican. Maybe it's two Democrats. Maybe it's two Republicans. The latter is very unlikely but if it happens, it's on the voters to get more organized next time. That being said, it doesn't escape me that while we are having conversations about increasing democracy, the other side is not. Which is why I support increasing direct democracy, avoiding anti-democracy blowback, while also being mindful of the other side's ratfuckery.

[OscarGuy]

The suggestion I've seen that probably has the most weight is: if a governor is recalled, then the Lt. Gov. replaces them. Simple and in a state like California, Republicans won't keep doing the recall thing if they no longer have a way of putting their own man in.

[Sabin]

I have no way of knowing this but I think Texas woke a lot of Democrats up. California is essentially a one-party state but Democrats tend to be a bit complacent following a win. Also, Gavin Newsom isn't personally that popular in this state but that's largely due to an image problem. He projects a slight Patrick Bateman quality. The idea of losing him didn't feel like the worst thing. After all, it's not like the governor really matters right? After Texas, they were reminded "Oh wait, it does."

Anyway, it's a shame that CA taxpayers have to pay $300 mil for Democrats to learn a valuable lesson: whatever you do, make the election about the other guy. But if they really learn it, and make it a national strategy, I'll call it money well spent on my part. Because if every midterm Republican candidate is going to be from the cult of Trump, that means: 1) they need to be compared to him, and 2) there is absolutely some crazy thing they said in the past like "Slaveowners should get reparations for losing their slaves" and it should be used against them.

One last thing: California Republicans are *SO* weird. This recall has been going on for months and I still have no idea the official reason why he was being recalled. Is it because of his handling of COVID? Because he didn't fix homelessness in his one year before COVID? No, it's just "Cause fuck him, that's why."

I support a recall measure but the number of signatures to trigger it truly needs to be much higher to start. But again: if it cost $300m for Dems to learn this and they do it, fine.

[danfrank]

Well stated, Tee. As a Californian (for now, not sure if I can continue to live in a state that is filled with smoke a few months out of the year) I was pretty nervous over the summer that the ridiculous recall process could actually deliver our deep blue state a truly crazy Trumpian governor. The (very expensive) anti-recall campaign did a terrific job of hitting the point that we could end up with an anti-vaxxer in office, and folks mailed in their ballots. There is definitely a movement here to change the constitution so that fringe groups (which is what the Republican Party is now in California) can’t keep doing this.

[Mister Tee]

The CA recall mechanism is frankly insane and ought to be eliminated -- Newsom could have got 49.99% in the vote, and been replaced by a lunatic Republican with as little as 15% statewide. It's exactly the kind of not-really-democracy-but-we'll-call-it-that tactic to which Republicans have been reduced, but at which they've become all too adept.

Fortunately, it's failed big-time, despite scary-ish mid-summer polling, because CA voters finally, in the last 6 weeks or so, awoke to the severity of the potential consequences, treated it like a serious election rather than a carnival, and cast their ballots in a way that reflected the demographics of the state. One of Joe Biden's famous lines is "Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative". The recall structure tempts people to do the former, but in the end they did the latter.

What a waste of time and money.

[Big Magilla]

Sabin,

For your sanity and ours, please stop quoting right-wing propaganda.

[Sabin]

It's far from the midterms but this grabbed my eye:

https://twitter.com/PollProjectUSA/stat ... 4725422090

President Biden Job Approval
Approve 47% (-1)
Disapprove 46% (=)

1,262 RV | 8/28-8/31
Sample: D+14

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/3gw2x4kv4w/ ... Report.pdf

So... that's how Biden is doing in a poll that is D+14.

Yikes.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Sotomayor's and Kagan's dissents are pure fire. I hope Breyer resigns.

I'm praying.

Okri wrote
Before he was elected, I questioned if Biden was the man for this moment. His first 100 days impressed me. His second? Not so much. I think he deserves credit for withdrawing from Afghanistan, but his approach to the court and to voting rights has been very disappointing.

I'm not a fan of judging Presidents by their first 100 days. Or their second. I don't think most historians approve of that lens either. But generally speaking... I'm just really concerned for the future.

Okri wrote
Now watch California recall Newsom and install Elder.

I have now-former friends that voted for Elder.

[Okri]

Sotomayor's and Kagan's dissents are pure fire. I hope Breyer resigns.

Before he was elected, I questioned if Biden was the man for this moment. His first 100 days impressed me. His second? Not so much. I think he deserves credit for withdrawing from Afghanistan, but his approach to the court and to voting rights has been very disappointing.

Now watch California recall Newsom and install Elder.