The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

[St. Clown]

Looks like Minnesota state fair opening day attendance was down just over half- 61k people instead of the usual 120-135k.

My wife and I were at the fair yesterday due to the rainy forecast. We had scheduled the day off from work months ago, and were playing a game of wait-and-see. Well, with the rainy forecast, we decided to go early and leave early, before it would normally get busy. The rain mostly held off, but still the crowd never really showed while we were there. We mostly stayed out of the buildings, just stopping by outdoor venues, except for a quick run into the bathrooms and one other building. Each time we entered a building we wore a mask.

Looking at the numbers now, yesterday's attendance was 77k, 80k fewer people than the same day 2019.

https://www.mnstatefair.org/about-the-fair/attendance/

 

[French Rage]

These are the exact thoughts that went through my head that got me wondering. Now, I expect there won’t be many (intentional) abstentions. These are the only two questions on the ballot, so if you aren’t planning to answer #1, you probably won’t bother turning in a ballot - but it’s looking tight enough that it could come down to a handful of votes, in which case it really matters if Newsome’s target is just more no than yes votes, or 50% of all ballots submitted.

Yeah with only two questions I'm trying to figure out what abstention even means. I would think they would require an answer on #1 for #2 to count. And I would assume a completely blank ballot means no ballot. But I guess it's not made explicit.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

About 2k gathered today at Minnesota state capital to argue against mandates and chanted “my body my choice.”

I hope they all OD on horse paste

 

[Handyman]

Yeah with only two questions I'm trying to figure out what abstention even means. I would think they would require an answer on #1 for #2 to count. And I would assume a completely blank ballot means no ballot. But I guess it's not made explicit.

If I read right you can answer Question 2 without answering Question 1 OR answering no to the Recall. That is why the Libs are saying to just say no and ignore 2.

 

[Kepler]

If I read right you can answer Question 2 without answering Question 1 OR answering no to the Recall. That is why the Libs are saying to just say no and ignore 2.

Is Newsome a choice for Q2? If so the right answer is No / Newsome. If no, then the right answer is No / whoever the leading D is. The most important thing is to deny the fascists a foothold in CA because of a fluke.

 

[LynahFan]

Is Newsome a choice for Q2? If so the right answer is No / Newsome. If no, then the right answer is No / whoever the leading D is. The most important thing is to deny the fascists a foothold in CA because of a fluke.

This. If you abstain from #2, some MAGA mouth breather will become CA gov with just 7% of the vote - in an off-cycle recall election.

(No, Newsome is not a choice and you aren’t even allowed to write him in.

 

[Handyman]

Is Newsome a choice for Q2? If so the right answer is No / Newsome. If no, then the right answer is No / whoever the leading D is. The most important thing is to deny the fascists a foothold in CA because of a fluke.

No he isn't and as Lynah said you cannot write him in. Just like in the GA runoff your vote didn't count if you voted for anyone but them.

The right answer is "No/Blank". You fill out no and then mail the fucker and be done with it.

 

[Kepler]

The right answer is "No/Blank."

No that's a terrible idea. You have to protect against the possibility the recall succeeds, so if you are permitted vote No / the leading Dem to stop the Nazis.

 

[Handyman]

That isnt how it works. You vote no and leave blank. That is literally what the Dems are telling people to do.

If you write in a name you risk someone else getting elected.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Can’t imagine how the average CA voter thinks if we can’t even agree on best route lol

 

[Kepler]

That isnt how it works. You vote no and leave blank. That is literally what the Dems are telling people to do.

If you write in a name you risk someone else getting elected.

Explain this to me as if I were a conservative. Why?

 

[Handyman]

Explain this to me as if I were a conservative. Why?

Because California is fucking stupid. That isn't some flyover comment either the whole process is moronic.

The ultimate goal is to have "No" over 50% that ends everything. (voting no to a recall)

If "Yes" is over 50% then Newsome is out and it goes to one of the 46 people running. Whoever has the highest of those 46 wins. Doesn't matter the percentage. That means you could have say, Larry Elder with 30% winning even though he is a vast minority compared to Newsome. Theoretically someone with 10% could win as long as they were higher than anyone else. It makes no fucking sense at all.

If the Dems ran anyone it would be suicide because you would likely get Newsome recalled and get smoked by any number of fucked up Trumpers running. If Newsome is recalled Cali is red until next year. (pray Feinstein lives) Elder is the odds on fave and the rest are just as nutso.

tl;dr: Vote no to save California

note: I dont live there though I have relatives who do. I follow a lot of people out in Cali though on Twitter and I get inundated with "Vote No Leave Blank" because anything else likely leads to Cali becoming COVID Flo(R)ida part Deux. Mask mandates gone. Vaccine pushes dead.

 

[French Rage]

If I read right you can answer Question 2 without answering Question 1 OR answering no to the Recall. That is why the Libs are saying to just say no and ignore 2.

I mean, it would never occur to me to only answer #2 and not #1 but hey who knows. I'm curious about the mindset of someone who would do so.

I personally hate leaving #2 blank. To me the Dems should have agreed on a "just in case" #2 answer. If people felt that strongly about having Newsom out, even in the party, then given the party's strength it feels the Dem would get enough on #2. I know there is supposed to be the storyline that the Dem turnout will be low because there won't be interest, but I'm interested to see how that pans out. Is there an enthusiasm gap? Yes, no one on the Dem side is happy we have to go through this crap. Are we still going to vote rather than sit out in anger? Of fucking course.

I personally went for Paffrath on #2 if for no other reason than he is a Dem and seemed to be gaining some momentum, so he could be the person everyone unofficially coalesces around for #2 just in case. With the GOP split between three major candidates hopefully that is enough, just in case.

 

[LynahFan]

The Dems aren’t “running” anyone, nor are they even endorsing and of the other candidates, and that is right - if they endorsed anyone, that would certainly weaken the commitment to Newsome and No.

But if you’re a sentient voter in California, there’s no way in hell you should vote No/Blank. Not all non-Newsomes are created equal, and you would be a fool to throw away your opportunity to swing the choice to the least of those evils.

 

[Kepler]

if they endorsed anyone, that would certainly weaken the commitment to Newsome and No.

I don't see this at all. You back Newsome because the recall is stupidity slash obvious anti-democratic intimidation but if the derps accomplish it then you at least save the seat and don't give it to the Gestapo.

 

[LynahFan]

I don't see this at all. You back Newsome because the recall is stupidity slash obvious anti-democratic intimidation but if the derps accomplish it then you at least save the seat and don't give it to the Gestapo.

I just think it’s dangerous - if they do that and there are Dems out there who would prefer the Dem’s #2 over Newsome, some may be more likely to give in to temptation and vote Yes to try to get their guy (Dems are not immune to stupidity). Better to remove that temptation by not having a designated #2.

 

[French Rage]

I can see the case on both sides of the argument. Unfortunately we have too small of a sample set to know which way people actually go here. Hopefully it's all moot.

 

[Handyman]

Logically Kep is right but in the real world the risk is just too high.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Texas on verge of passing their horrific voter suppression bill

And, as Marc Elias just tweeted, Texas is on the verge of being sued for said bill.

get the bigots, Marc.

 

[SJHovey]

Because California is fucking stupid. That isn't some flyover comment either the whole process is moronic.

The ultimate goal is to have "No" over 50% that ends everything. (voting no to a recall)

If "Yes" is over 50% then Newsome is out and it goes to one of the 46 people running. Whoever has the highest of those 46 wins. Doesn't matter the percentage. That means you could have say, Larry Elder with 30% winning even though he is a vast minority compared to Newsome. Theoretically someone with 10% could win as long as they were higher than anyone else. It makes no fucking sense at all.

If the Dems ran anyone it would be suicide because you would likely get Newsome recalled and get smoked by any number of fucked up Trumpers running. If Newsome is recalled Cali is red until next year. (pray Feinstein lives) Elder is the odds on fave and the rest are just as nutso.

tl;dr: Vote no to save California

note: I dont live there though I have relatives who do. I follow a lot of people out in Cali though on Twitter and I get inundated with "Vote No Leave Blank" because anything else likely leads to Cali becoming COVID Flo(R)ida part Deux. Mask mandates gone. Vaccine pushes dead.

The official party position has to be "vote no" and then take no position on a replacement, because there won't be one. For them to do anything else, as others have said, is to risk encouraging a "yes" vote on Newsome's ouster.

The LA Times had an interesting story on the history of California's recall election process, which has been around for more than a hundred years. There have been 179 petitions over the history of the law, but only 11 made it this far, to a vote. However, once it has made it to a vote, 6 of 10 have resulted in the ouster of the official (an admittedly small sample size). With respect to the governor's office only, it looks like this is just the second time it has reached a vote in 55 tries, with Davis' recall about 20 years ago the only other time there was actually a vote to remove the governor.