California RECALL Megathread! (San Diego, Sacramento, Newport Beach: apartment complexes, rent, insurance)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sav858

All leaders are judged on how well they handled a crisis, there is nothing "tasteless, tacky or cringeworthy" about that. He did a pretty mediocre job based on the metrics so not sure why you think he shouldn't be scrutinized for it. On top of that CA has one of the highest unemployment rates and ranks near dead last in getting kids back in the classroom.

Yes and CA ranks 31st as far as Covid deaths per capita, so Faulconer can go jump in a lake.

And dont talk to me about jobs unless you are prepared to state how many more deaths would have been acceptable for jobs to be saved.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yes and CA ranks 31st as far as Covid deaths per capita, so Faulconer can go jump in a lake.

And dont talk to me about jobs unless you are prepared to state how many more deaths would have been acceptable for jobs to be saved.

Possibly none or even less considering other states managed to have lower death rates and not do as much economic damage and got kids back into the classroom sooner. Seems like a lot of the people who don't care about the economic damage is because they aren't affected by it and simply don't care about other people's livelihoods.

Many national news organizations including the NY Times have critiqued Newsom's handling of the pandemic too given the mediocre results.

ijs, you have zero high ground from which to preach on this, yet this absurd coalition of trumpists and selfish libertarians is out there acting like they speak for the majority....you dont.

I'm not a "trumpist" or liberatarian and neither are a lot of people who support his recall. Not sure how stating an opinion is "speaking for the majority". Calm down.

[HappyinCali]

As with everything the truth is in the middle and non-partisan

Newsom clearly made mistakes. Especially, with the second closure. At that time we had a lot more data about how the virus spreads. There was a washington DC study that demonstrated insignificant % of cases of the virus being transmitted by outdoor dining and places like nail salons.

Newsom was point-black asked about that data in several conferences and why he still included those businesses in the closures and he didn’t asnwer and ignored the question.

Newsom was very good in the early stages. He screwed it up big time in the later stages.

There was even an article written by a UCSF epidemiologist who said that the strict closures probably made things worse because they pushed people from safer environment (outdoor dining) to more dangerous ones (small indoor gatherings) as people had no outlets and after 9 mos of closured were going to gather anyway.

This is all facts.

“Currently, some individual counties such as Los Angeles and Imperial continue to have a much higher death rate than the nation’s average.

Los Angeles was at 201 deaths per 100,000 this week. The rate is much higher for the county’s Latino population, at 321 deaths per 100,000, according to county data.

“Only 6 states reported higher rates,” than Los Angeles County’s rate, Riley noted in his email. Those are New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Mississippi.”

“ The Golden State is reporting the fourth-highest rate of new COVID-19 cases per capita in the country, and the state's hospitals are overwhelmed and considering rationing care. Several regions have gone under new stay-at-home orders in recent weeks, but compliance appears to be low.”

https://www.capradio.org/articles/20...ewsom-claimed/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...D-15909242.php

https://la.eater.com/2020/12/1/21783612/outdoor-dining-data-restaurants-los-angeles-county-public-health-coronavirus-why-numbers

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-COVID-lockdown-cases-deaths-businesses-15819841.php

The article about Faulconer is dumb. Shoulda woulda coulda BS.

However, there was ample evidence at the time of the second closure that we needed a more nuanced approach. Newsom chose to ignore it and refused to answer questions about it.

Me personally, I was very proud of Newsom circa September. But I think the buck stops with him and he messed up big time in Nov-Feb and I will be voting to recall him.

[BB_210]

I wonder if he would've also not released Covid data so nobody would know what he is basing his decisions on. Easy way to not be measured on performance when the public has nothing to measure you by, right Newsom?

https://apnews.com/article/sacrament...6f6c621daeaf10

[TheseGoTo11]

We also can't forget the future damage Gavin's inability to create and execute policy could lead to.

The Central Valley has a COVID problem, and his coloring book can't fix it. Judging San Joaquin County by the same measures as San Francisco redefines ineffective. There needs to be a specific plan to mitigate spread in crowded homes and among essential workers. Right now, the crayons and coloring book treat all counties as the same.

There is also nothing going on to address the job loss and high unemployment throughout the state. We have the highest unemployment rate in the lower 48 and all Newsolini's got are Trump-like, defensive, narcissistic explanations.

Gavin's not done causing damage, not like he's shown he can learn from bad mistakes.

[Valley Boy]

Originally Posted by sav858

I think that's mainly because of Newsom's granstanding handing out gay marriage licenses. Aside from that what would he have been known for outside of SF?

I don't think attracting attention is a good way to measure how good a leader is at all, especially if its for the wrong reasons. San Diego isn't a city that gets much national attention outside of being a vacation destination anyways. SF and LA dominate headlines no matter who the mayor is.

It's not about good or bad, that is not the point I am making. The point is for better or worse, Newsom has become well known amongst the political world for his policy approach. When an executive has a profile, regardless of whether or not you approve of it, the person is still well known (and ipso facto more likely to achieve higher office).

On a national level, no one knows who Faulconer is, which can severely limit fundraising capabilities. On a state level no one knows who he is, either. Which means he lacks voter recognition. It's the exact reason Republicans drafted Arnold Schwarzenegger to run against Gray Davis. No one knew a damn thing about his policy standpoints, but he had name recognition.

This is what makes Faulconer's ascent a likely up-hill battle, if it happens at all.

Like I said, I had my reservations about Newsom, even back when he lost to Jerry Brown. I am not a big fan of his at all.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Valley Boy

It's not about good or bad, that is not the point I am making. The point is for better or worse, Newsom has become well known amongst the political world for his policy approach. When an executive has a profile, regardless of whether or not you approve of it, the person is still well known (and ipso facto more likely to achieve higher office).

On a national level, no one knows who Faulconer is, which can severely limit fundraising capabilities. On a state level no one knows who he is, either. Which means he lacks voter recognition. It's the exact reason Republicans drafted Arnold Schwarzenegger to run against Gray Davis. No one knew a damn thing about his policy standpoints, but he had name recognition.

This is what makes Faulconer's ascent a likely up-hill battle, if it happens at all.

Like I said, I had my reservations about Newsom, even back when he lost to Jerry Brown. I am not a big fan of his at all.

Well that kinds of seems to be the point you were making because you said he had "achieved nothing" and he "sucked arse" because no one knows who he is. Unless you were simply talking about achieving name recognition there, which of course he hadn't.

Yes I agree making a name for yourself has obvious advantages and gets you ahead in politics even if you are fairly incompetent and don't have much a positive impact.

[Valley Boy]

Originally Posted by sav858

Well that kinds of seems to be the point you were making because you said he had "achieved nothing" and he "sucked arse" because no one knows who he is. Unless you were simply talking about achieving name recognition there, which of course he hadn't.

Yes I agree making a name for yourself has obvious advantages and gets you ahead in politics even if you are fairly incompetent and don't have much a positive impact.

Whether or not voters see Gavin as Gray Davis level incompetent remains to be seen. While it ****ed people up, did it really cost lives? That's the thing. If we have another surge in cases and shut downs, Newsom is done. He will have not only failed to stop a surge which costs lives, he will have done economic/social damage with lock downs. If the vaccines start pumping and by the summer we leave this pandemic the way we came in, I think he walks out of this on his own two feet.

[sav858]

Time and the direction of the pandemic (at least at the moment) is on Newsom's side. He'll likely beat it unless something else happens between now and the recall vote. Hopefully the power stays on in CA this summer for him! That's not a good look when it doesn't.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Valley Boy

It's the exact reason Republicans drafted Arnold Schwarzenegger to run against Gray Davis.

That's not quite how it went down and Tom McClintock would like a word with you.
As for the Faulconer piece and his Monday morning QB'ing, I'm more interested in hearing what a potential replacement for Newsom plans to do in the immediate future. The next guy, be it via the recall or the regular election, better have a solid plan for the post-covid rebuild.