More stories

  • in

    Revocatoria en California: estas son las claves

    Los primeros informes sugieren que la gran base demócrata de California apoya al gobernador Newsom, que arrasó en 2018, cuando fue electo. En la boleta hay más de 40 contendientes para sustituirlo.Los votantes de California decidirán el martes si destituyen al gobernador Gavin Newsom, lo que pone fin a una elección peculiar que ha transcurrido en medio de una pandemia y ha sido observada con atención como uno de los primeros grandes indicadores de la dirección política que tomará el país después de que el presidente Joe Biden asumió el mando.Los demócratas se sienten cada vez más confiados y anticipan que Newsom permanecerá en el cargo y evitarán lo que sería un desastre para el partido en California, el estado más poblado del país. Si Newsom es revocado, su reemplazo más probable sería Larry Elder, un presentador de la radio conservadora que ha hecho una carrera atacando las causas liberales.Pero el hecho de que el gobernador demócrata de un estado que Biden ganó por casi 30 puntos porcentuales se vea obligado a luchar para conservar su puesto ha puesto de manifiesto las vulnerabilidades de los líderes que parecían bien posicionados antes de la pandemia de coronavirus.Los demócratas intentan motivar a los votantes sin la presencia del expresidente Donald Trump en la papeleta y una derrota –e incluso una victoria muy ajustada– crearía dudas sobre la influencia política de Biden, que hizo campaña a favor de Newsom la noche del lunes.Los principales republicanos que compiten por reemplazar a Newsom se han alineado con Trump y sus afirmaciones infundadas de que la elección de 2020 estuvo amañada, una señal temprana de la falta de voluntad o incapacidad del partido para distanciarse del expresidente.Incluso si la naturaleza peculiar de las elecciones revocatorias de California no ofrece un barómetro perfecto del estado de ánimo nacional, hay mucho en juego, incluido el liderazgo de la quinta economía más grande del mundo. Los expertos políticos de ambos partidos señalan que el destino de Newsom podría tener consecuencias nacionales de gran alcance, dado el poder del gobernador para nombrar un nuevo senador en caso de que surja una vacante.El gobernador Gavin Newsom en un mitin de la campaña “Vota No” en Sun Valley, California, el domingoAlex Welsh para The New York TimesA los votantes se les ha pedido responder dos preguntas: ¿Newsom debe ser revocado? Y, si eso sucede, ¿quién debe reemplazarlo? En la boleta aparecen 46 candidatos, alrededor de la mitad de ellos son republicanos y también participan siete candidatos certificados que pueden añadirse a mano.El ganador gobernará por el resto del mandato de Newsom, que concluye en enero de 2023. Sin importar el resultado, habrá otra elección en poco más de un año.Las urnas cerrarán a las 8 p.m. hora del Pacífico. Sigue nuestra página de resultados y cobertura de la elección y sus implicaciones en nytimes.com.Esto es lo que estaremos monitoreando mientras llegan los resultados:¿El gobernador podrá sobrevivir a la revocatoria?Los primeros resultados sugieren que la gran base demócrata de California apoya a Newsom, quien fue electo en 2018 con una gran ventaja. La campaña del gobernador ha presentado la campaña revocatoria como un intento de los republicanos de Trump por hacerse con el poder.Si Newsom es revocado, será porque una gran cantidad de electores independientes y demócratas votaron en su contra, lo cual en California sería señal de un giro significativo e improbable a la derecha.La duda es si el gobernador gana con margen amplio o estrecho. Durante un tiempo, las encuestas parecían indicar que los probables votantes no se mostraban muy entusiasmados respecto a Newsom, lo que causó un torrente de apoyo por parte de grandes donantes así como la aparición de personajes demócratas de importancia nacional, entre ellos Biden.Una victoria decisiva de Newsom, como predicen algunas encuestas recientes, lo fortalecería de cara a una campaña para un segundo mandato en 2022 y quizás incluso lo posicionaría para ocupar un cargo a nivel nacional. Pero si Newsom se queda en la gobernatura por solo un par de puntos porcentuales, podría enfrentar un desafío primario el próximo año.¿Cuántos republicanos van a votar?Los republicanos representan solo una cuarta parte de los votantes registrados de California. Desde la década de 1990, cuando las posturas antiinmigrantes del partido alejaron a los latinos, su número ha disminuido. Los proponentes de la revocatoria la han presentado como una forma de fiscalizar el poder de los demócratas, que controlan todas las oficinas estatales y la Legislatura. Los republicanos también dicen que la batalla ha animado la base de su partido.Pero el apoyo republicano y el dinero para la revocatoria no se acercan al gran fondo de financiación y a la operación con que cuenta Newsom. Y la candidatura de Elder parece que ha presentado al Partido Republicano como de extrema derecha, para estándares de California. El apoyo para los moderados como Kevin Faulconer, exalcalde de San Diego, se registra en cifras inferiores al 10 por ciento, según los sondeos.Partidarios de Larry Elder se reúnen durante una parada de campaña en el Ayuntamiento de Monterey Park el lunesAlex Welsh para The New York TimesLos críticos del Partido Republicano durante el mandato de Trump dicen que si no logran revocar a Newsom esto podría disminuir aún más la influencia republicana en California y acentuar la polarización del país.¿Cómo votarán los latinos?Los latinos son el grupo étnico más numeroso de California, comprenden alrededor del 30 por ciento de los votantes registrados y son un gran grupo demócrata que ha dado forma a la gobernanza del estado durante décadas.No obstante, y para consternación del partido de Newsom y gran interés de los partidarios de la revocatoria, los latinos no han acudido rápidamente a participar, en parte debido a la distracción —muchos votantes están más ocupados sorteando la pandemia— y a la ambivalencia, tanto respecto a Newsom en particular como al Partido Demócrata en general.Los críticos han advertido que los demócratas de California han asumido, equivocadamente, que el electorado latino se sentiría motivado por el recuerdo de las políticas antiinmigrantes republicanas, en lugar de apostar por atraer a los latinos con una visión para el futuro.Esto ha avivado la especulación sobre la posibilidad de que en California y el resto del país el voto latino, de rápido crecimiento, esté disponible para los candidatos dispuestos a esforzarse por conectar con estos electores. Luego de que los republicanos se llevaron una parte significativa del apoyo latino en todo el país durante la elección de 2020, la ausencia de los latinos en las urnas podría generar un nuevo episodio de introspección demócrata.¿Cuán influyentes serán las boletas de votos por correo?A cada votante registrado y activo en California se le envió una boleta como parte de una extensión de las reglas de votación pandémica. El sistema, iniciado en 2020 para mantener seguros a los votantes y los trabajadores electorales, ayudó a aumentar la participación a más del 70 por ciento en las elecciones presidenciales. Este mes, los legisladores votaron para que el sistema sea permanente.Los funcionarios electorales de California dijeron que la votación transcurrió sin problemas en 2020. Pero los republicanos han dicho que las papeletas enviadas por correo invitan a la trampa, lo cual es similar al reclamo, sin fundamento, que hizo Trump al decir que los demócratas se habían valido de estas boletas para robar la elección presidencial.La semana pasada, en una participación en Newsmax, el expresidente aseguró, sin proveer evidencia, que la elección revocatoria estaba “probablemente amañada”.Los grupos conservadores que buscan evidencias de fraude electoral han estado pidiendo a los californianos que reporten si reciben por correo papeletas para personas fallecidas o votantes que no residen en su dirección.Las advertencias sobre el voto por correo parecen haber surtido efecto: los republicanos se muestran reacios a aceptar la práctica, una tendencia que preocupa a algunos en el partido dado que más estados están adoptando el sufragio enviado por correo. Aun así, la noche antes de la elección, casi 40 por ciento de todos los votantes registrados habían emitido su voto, una proporción considerable que sugiere que la comodidad de votar anticipadamente y por correo tendrá un efecto positivo en la participación durante una elección en una temporada inusual.Los votantes entregaron las boletas a las puertas del juzgado del condado de Alameda, en Oakland, el lunes.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesEso es un buen augurio para Newsom, que depende de la enorme base de votantes demócratas del estado: cuanto mayor sea la participación general, dice su campaña, mejores serán sus posibilidades.Sin embargo, los analistas están atentos ante la posibilidad de que haya grandes cantidades de votantes republicanos que acudan a votar en persona el martes y se preguntan si los votantes latinos los acompañarán.¿Qué relación tiene el voto con la pandemia?De no ser por el panorama creado por la COVID-19, es probable que Newsom no estaría pelando ahora por mantener su cargo. Pero últimamente ha hecho algunos progresos. Los casos han bajado este mes en California, el uso de mascarillas en interiores es una realidad en muchas zonas del estado y alrededor del 80 por ciento de las personas elegibles se han vacunado con al menos una dosis.En las últimas semanas, Newsom ha alardeado del enfoque de California, señalando que los requisitos de uso de cubrebocas y vacunación han reducido los nuevos casos a la mitad de las tasas reportadas en los estados gobernados por republicanos.Los californianos indican que no hay tema que les importe más que controlar al coronavirus. El amplio apoyo a favor de Newsom, más allá de los votantes demócratas, podría indicarle a otros funcionarios —incluso en otros estados, que tienen elecciones a la gubernatura el año entrante— que las políticas de salud firmes pueden tener un buen impacto político.Otros candidatos demócratas en la boleta este otoño también han apoyado medidas como el uso de mascarilla obligatorio y los requisitos de vacunación al tiempo que llaman la atención sobre la posibilidad de que sus oponentes republicanos pudieran dar marcha atrás a esas medidas. Biden también ha presentado políticas más estrictas y un discurso más duro dirigido hacia los gobernadores republicanos.¿Qué papel tiene Trump en la contienda?Durante cuatro años, los demócratas disfrutaron de enormes ganancias gracias a Trump. El expresidente motivó a los activistas del partido a trabajar para contrarrestarlo, ayudó a sus candidatos a recaudar montañas de dinero en efectivo para la campaña y llevó a sus votantes a las urnas en cifras récord.Newsom ha intentado sostener esa fuente de inspiración y a menudo advierte que el “trumpismo” persiste en la vida política estadounidense. Su elección revocatoria es la primera gran prueba para saber si el espectro del expresidente sigue teniendo poder para movilizar a los votantes liberales al tiempo que anima a los moderados a seguir votando por demócratas.Del lado republicano, los principales candidatos se han entregado al manual de estrategia política de Trump, al hacer afirmaciones, infundadas, de fraude de elección y votos “amañados”. Elder se ha rehusado a indicar si piensa aceptar los resultados de la elección.No todos los republicanos están de acuerdo con esta estrategia. A algunos les preocupa que pueda ocasionar que algunos republicanos se queden en casa porque creen que sus votos no serán respetados, y la baja participación podría dar crédito a ese argumento.Shawn Hubler es corresponsal en California con sede en Sacramento. Antes de unirse al Times en 2020, pasó casi dos décadas cubriendo el estado para Los Angeles Times como reportera itinerante, columnista y escritora de revista. Compartió tres premios Pulitzer con el equipo Metro del periódico. @ShawnHublerLisa Lerer es una corresponsal de política nacional que cubre campañas electorales, votaciones y poder político. @llerer More

  • in

    How Will Gavin Newsom Survive the California Recall?

    LOS ANGELES — In the waning days of the campaign to save his job, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California assessed the stakes as nothing short of saving democracy. The possibility of being recalled from office had woken him to the fragile state of the political system, which he compared to … a Fabergé egg.“This is like a Fabergé egg, so to speak, in terms of democracy,” he said. “It’s not a football. You can’t throw it around. It’s delicate. Democracy is delicate. I didn’t realize how delicate it was, and now I’m starting to appreciate how delicate it is and how important this race is, not just for me.”That belated realization has animated the final weeks of this odd campaign, and when the votes are counted after the polls close on Tuesday, they appear very likely to break in the governor’s favor. Yet the election seems destined to be neither a morality play about democracy nor an endorsement of Mr. Newsom and his record. It is more prosaic than that: a lopsided battle between a reasonably popular Democratic incumbent who often seems more self-absorbed than self-aware and a conservative radio talk show host who is arguably to the right of Donald Trump, in a state Mr. Trump lost by 29 percentage points.What the recall does tell us is that California — one of the bluest states in the country — is not so different from other places in being subject to the gravitational tug of partisan forces. Even if Mr. Newsom prevails by a wide margin, the recall has underscored Californians’ continuing ambivalence about his leadership. A victory will be less a vote of confidence than a resounding rejection of the right-wing Republican agenda, a message Democrats hope will resonate beyond California.This should not even be close — and perhaps, despite earlier alarmist polling that suggested a tight race, it never was. On the up-or-down question of whether to recall Mr. Newsom, support for his removal has been consistently about 40 percent, slightly more than the share of the vote that Mr. Trump received in 2020. Mr. Newsom, elected by a large margin in 2018, has just presided over a staggering $76 billion budget surplus that enabled the state to spend generously on myriad programs and people — from elaborate vaccine lotteries to $600 stimulus checks.California Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two to one, and no Republican has won statewide in 15 years. To defeat the recall, Mr. Newsom needs only to make sure enough Democrats vote. Polls and the large turnout of Democrats in early voting suggest he will do that.The political calculus has been complicated by several factors: the topsy-turvy nature of the Covid pandemic and its hardships, without which the recall would not have made the ballot; the extreme political polarization that has gripped the country; and California’s recall law, which makes it possible for a replacement to win with minimal support should the recall pass. But Democrats’ fears that lackluster turnout could create a doomsday scenario have also reflected lukewarm enthusiasm about Mr. Newsom and underlying dissatisfaction with his leadership on severe challenges like lack of affordable housing and devastating wildfires.Some of the dissonance is personal. He has long moved in an elite, moneyed world of Michelin-starred restaurants and Fabergé collectors. He empathized about sharing the parental pain of Zoom school while his kids attended private schools that were already offering in-person instruction. On the day he took office, he moved with fanfare into the state-owned Governor’s Mansion in downtown Sacramento — without disclosing he had already bought a $3.7 million suburban estate that would be the family home.Some of the tepid support is professional. His extensive use of executive orders and powers contributed to friction and distrust with some Democratic legislative leaders. He has a reputation dating back to his tenure as mayor of San Francisco of being enamored of bright, shiny objects, making headline-grabbing announcements that lack follow-through. Progressives are dissatisfied with his action on issues like fracking and single-payer health care; moderates view him as too liberal. In some sense, he lacks a committed base.But the specter of a Trump Republican governor has united Democrats. Mr. Newsom has capitalized on his ability to accept donations of unlimited amounts — another quirk of the recall law — amassing more than $70 million to wage a scare campaign against the talk-show host Larry Elder, the front-runner to become governor if the recall passes. Mr. Elder’s extreme positions on Covid-19 (he wants to repeal vaccine and mask mandates), climate change (he’s “not sure” state wildfires are due to climate change), abortion (he is “pro-life, 100 percent”) and the minimum wage (“the ideal minimum wage is $0.00”) have enabled Mr. Newsom to set the contest in a national frame, warning that California would become Texas and Florida rolled into one. It’s not clear whether the tens of millions of dollars spent on the Vote No campaign has won Mr. Newsom any converts. But that isn’t the goal. The fear is meant to galvanize a large Democratic turnout.Mr. Newsom largely has not campaigned on his record, with the exception of his management of the pandemic, which has earned him strong approval ratings at a time of growing support for mandates on vaccinations and masks.At the same time, fewer than half of those surveyed recently said California was headed in the right direction, and about half thought the state was in a recession. When rated on pressing problems like housing, homelessness and economic issues — which have temporarily taken a back seat to Covid-19 concerns — Mr. Newsom has earned relatively low marks.In recent weeks, Mr. Newsom stayed on message, warning the recall is a matter of life and death. He made little mention of accomplishments beyond boasting in some interviews about ambitious programs that have for the most part not yet gone into effect (like a promise of universal prekindergarten for 4-year-olds and an experiment in providing health care to people living on the street).He would have liked to campaign on his record, Mr. Newsom recently told the Los Angeles Times editorial board. But that would have to wait until his presumed re-election campaign next year.Republicans have probably squandered their best opportunity to regain power. With no obvious strong contenders on the horizon, it seems likely that 2022 will bring a sequel to what is looking like the anticlimactic recall of 2021.Miriam Pawel (@miriampawel) is the author of “The Browns of California: The Family Dynasty That Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Covid Isn’t Finished Messing With Politics

    Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I’m trying to keep an open mind — OK, semi-open — about what to think of Joe Biden’s Covid vaccination mandates. I have no problem with the president requiring federal employees to get the shot. I have no problem with businesses large or small requiring the same. Their houses, their rules.But the civil libertarian in me doesn’t love the idea of this or any president using administrative powers to force vaccines on the people who refuse to get them. Your thoughts?Gail Collins: Well, Bret, if Biden was rounding up the non-vaxxers, having them tied down and inoculated by force — the way many Republicans seem to be drawing the picture — I’d certainly have reservations. But in effect he’s saying that they shouldn’t be allowed in certain places where infection is relatively easy to spread, like workplaces or public buildings.This is a serious, serious health crisis and I don’t think I’d want the president to content himself with giving pep talks.And don’t I remember a previous conversation in which you suggested the non-vaccinated didn’t deserve to be allowed in hospitals if they got sick?Bret: Not exactly, but close. The most elegant policy riposte to the anti-vaxxers — and I mean the willful ones, not the people who simply haven’t had access to the shot or have a compelling medical excuse — is to refuse to allow Medicare or Medicaid to pay their medical bills in the event they become seriously ill. Private health insurers might also follow suit. I accept that people don’t want the government or their employer telling them what to do with their bodies. But these same people shouldn’t expect someone else to bail them out of their terrible health decisions.I have another reservation about what Biden’s doing. Right now, the vast majority of Covid-related hospitalizations are happening among the unvaccinated, which is further proof the shots work. I understand that puts doctors and nurses under a lot of strain, though Covid hospitalizations seem to be declining and the surgeries that are being put off are mainly elective. Otherwise, I don’t see the latest Covid spike as the same kind of issue it was a year or so ago. It’s gone from being a public-health crisis to a nincompoop-health crisis.Gail: Imagining that as a new political slogan …Bret: Is “nincompoop” too strong? How about “total geniuses if they do say so themselves,” instead? Anyway, as anti-vaxxers are mostly putting themselves at serious risk of getting seriously ill, I don’t see the need for a presidential directive, including the renewed mask mandates, which only diminish the incentive to get vaccinated. No doubt I’m missing a few things …Gail: As someone who hates hates hates wearing a mask, I love the idea of getting rid of them. And there are a lot of public places now where I see signs basically saying: If you’re vaccinated, mask wearing is up to you.But in my neighborhood, where most of the people I see on the streets are long since vaccinated, a lot of folks wear masks even when they’re just walking around. It’s more convenient if you’re popping in and out of stores or mass transit, but I like to think they also want to remind the world that we’re still fighting back a pandemic, which is easier if everybody works together.Bret: There are people, particularly the immunocompromised, who have a solid medical or emotional need to take great precautions, including masks, and I totally respect them. The busybodies and virtue-signalers, not so much.Gail: On another presidential matter, I noticed your last column was somewhat, um … negative on the Biden presidency. You really think it’s been that bad?Bret: In hindsight, the headline, “Another Failed Presidency at Hand,” probably took the argument a step farther than the column itself. It’s too early to say that the Biden presidency has failed. But people who wish the president success — and that includes me — need to grasp the extent to which he’s in deep political trouble. It isn’t just the Afghan debacle, or worrisome inflation, or his predictions about the end of the pandemic when the virus had other ideas. I think he has misread his political mandate, which was to be a moderate, unifying leader in the mold of George Bush Sr., not a transformational one in the mold of Lyndon Johnson. And he’s trying to do this on the strength of Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote in the Senate. I think it’s a recipe for more social division and political failure.Gail: As reviews go, that’s certainly a downer.Bret: None of this is to commend the not-so-loyal opposition party. But they’re the ones who stand to gain most from a weak Biden presidency.Gail: Looking at it from my end, we have a president who’s got to make the country feel it’s not trapped in an unhealthy, unhappy, overall-depressed state forever. I’m buying into big change, which requires more than a gentle hand at the wheel. But back to your Biden critique. You said you voted for him last time but now he has revealed himself to be “headstrong,” “shaky” and “inept.” What if Donald Trump runs against him?Bret: One of the reasons I’m so dismayed by Biden’s performance is that it’s going to tempt Trump to run again. In which case, I’ll vote for whoever is most likely to beat Trump. Hell, I’d probably even vote for Bernie. I’d rather have a president who’s a danger to the economy and national security than one who’s a danger to democracy and national sanity.Gail: I do like imagining you walking around town with a Bernie button.Bret: Let’s not take this too far! Hopefully it will work out differently. Bill Clinton managed to straighten out his presidency after a terrible start that included the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia and the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. But that means tacking back toward the center. If I were Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, I’d be quietly pushing Nancy Pelosi to pass a “clean” $1 trillion infrastructure bill that gives the president the big bipartisan win that he really needs now.Gail: And has all the stuff that you like.Bret: As for his $3.5 trillion social-spending behemoth, he might consider breaking up the bill into separate items of legislation to bring the headline price tag down. If this stuff is as popular as progressives claim, they should be able to score some legislative victories piece by piece.Gail: Sounds reasonable outside the reality of our modern-day Congress, in which the idea of passing more than one bill on anything seems way, way more difficult than firing a shuttle into space.Bret: In the meantime, we’ve got a recall election coming up in California, for which polling shows Governor Newsom will likely survive. I’m not Newsom’s biggest fan, but the whole idea of recall elections seems … unsound.Gail: Yeah, California makes it relatively easy to gather enough signatures for a recall vote, and this is a good example of why that’s bad. Newsom has been one of the strongest governors when it comes to pandemic-fighting, and while that’s great, the restrictions have been around for so long it’s left a lot of people feeling really cranky.Bret: I’m making my quizzical face. Go on.Gail: Then we had one of the worst political errors in recent American political history, when Newsom snuck off to a very fancy restaurant for a maskless birthday dinner for a lobbyist pal. Who wouldn’t have muttered “this guy has to go”?Bret: It was also emblematic of out-of-touch California elites who live on a totally different planet from the one in which there’s a housing crisis, a homelessness crisis, an affordability crisis, an addiction crisis, a pension crisis, a schooling crisis, a power-outage crisis, a wildfires crisis, a water-shortage crisis and maybe even another Kardashian crisis — all in a state that’s under almost complete Democratic Party control.Gail: But now recall reality is creeping in. People are looking at the conservative Republican who’d probably wind up as Newsom’s successor and realizing there are way worse things than a tone-deaf politician.Bret: California could really benefit from breaking up the Democrats’ electoral monopoly. Too bad the state Republican Party did itself so much damage with its terrible anti-immigration stance in the 1990s.Gail: Having two consistently competitive parties is good — when a party has hope of winning an election, it’s less likely to snap up a crazy person or a ridiculous person as a candidate. Which I’m afraid does get us over to Newson’s potential Republican successor, Larry Elder. Speaking of Republicans, anybody coming up now who’s winning your heart?Bret: Liz Cheney: gutsy and principled. Adam Kinzinger: ditto. Ben Sasse: decent and smart. Larry Hogan: ditto. John McCain: historic, heroic, humane — but tragically deceased. Basically, all the folks whose chances of surviving in the current G.O.P. are about as great as a small herd of gazelles in a crocodile-infested river.Gail: You’ve picked five Republicans, none of them stars on the rise and one long since passed away. Trump still has a grip on the heart of the party. Which is why I haven’t given up hope that we’ll lasso you back into voting Democratic in 2024.But way, way more topics for discussion before that. Have a good week, Bret, and let’s make a date to discuss the results of the California recall next time. If Newsom wins, we’re all going to be watching avidly to see where he holds his victory party.Bret: He should try holding it at an actual laundromat this time, not the French Laundry.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    La estrategia del gobernador de California frente a la revocatoria: ‘Gavin Newsom contra el abismo’

    Conforme se acerca la votación en la que podría ser destituido, el gobernador invoca a una figura familiar de la política estadounidense: el expresidente Donald Trump.SACRAMENTO — A medida que la campaña para destituirlo llega a su último fin de semana, el gobernador de California, Gavin Newsom, está insistiendo en la opción que ha presentado a los votantes desde el comienzo del proceso para la revocatoria: o Donald Trump o él.“Derrotamos a Trump el año pasado, y gracias, pero no hemos derrotado al trumpismo”, ha repetido el gobernador durante las dos últimas semanas en un bombardeo de recorridos de campaña y llamadas por Zoom. Desde la resistencia a las vacunas hasta el negacionismo climático, dice, todo lo que aterrorizaba a los liberales californianos sobre el último presidente está en la papeleta. Y mucho más que su propio futuro personal pende de un hilo: “Es una cuestión de vida o muerte”.Sus oponentes lo cuestionan. El gobernador, dicen, es el problema, y la destitución nunca habría llegado a unas elecciones si una masa crítica del estado no se hubiera resentido por sus restricciones pandémicas a las empresas y las aulas, incluso cuando sus propias finanzas estaban seguras y sus hijos recibían instrucción en persona. El expresidente, señalan, no es candidato. “Newsom es un alarmista”, tuiteó recientemente David Sacks, un capitalista de riesgo de Silicon Valley que apoya la destitución.Solo tres gobernadores se han enfrentado a votaciones de destitución en Estados Unidos antes que Newsom, y él —y el poder demócrata— está haciendo todo lo posible por presentar el esfuerzo como una toma de poder radical, con algunos partidarios incluso comparándolo en un momento dado con el violento intento del 6 de enero de bloquear la elección del presidente Joe Biden.Al invocar a Trump como su oponente de elección, Newsom está retomando un mensaje que ha usado en el pasado para mitigar las críticas de manera efectiva, mientras que también está probando una estrategia que es probable que se replique entre los demócratas que buscan movilizar a los votantes en las elecciones intermedias en todo el país el próximo año.En efecto, el líder que los californianos eligieron por abrumadora mayoría en 2018 no se postula siguiendo las políticas demócratas de un demócrata que busca reelegirse tanto como atendiendo un llamado a la acción urgente, aunque conocido, contra una amenaza existencial a los valores del estado azul.Las encuestas sugieren que Newsom está siendo convincente, y se ha adelantado a sus oponentes, un súbito enfoque de las mentes demócratas después de que los probables votantes indicaron a principios de este verano que la carrera se podría estar apretando. Una encuesta publicada la semana pasada por el Instituto de Políticas Públicas de California reveló que solo el 39 por ciento de los posibles votantes, en su mayoría republicanos, apoyan la destitución, mientras que el 58 por ciento piensa votar en contra.Su ventaja entre las votantes ha sido especialmente sólida, reforzada en los últimos días por las apariciones de la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris y las senadoras Elizabeth Warren y Amy Klobuchar. El presidente Biden hará campaña con él el lunes y el expresidente Barack Obama y el senador Bernie Sanders aparecen en sus anuncios de campaña.Ha acumulado unos 70 millones de dólares en contribuciones contra la revocatoria. Eso es menos que los cientos de millones de dólares que se gastaron el año pasado, por ejemplo, en la lucha por una iniciativa sobre la protección laboral de los trabajadores por obra, pero aún así es mucho más que el dinero acumulado por los otros 46 aspirantes en la votación. Además, su equipo ha movilizado un enorme esfuerzo de captación de votos con decenas de miles de voluntarios que envían mensajes de texto a decenas de millones de votantes y hacen campaña por él en siete idiomas.El gobernador también ha tenido avances en la lucha contra el coronavirus, ya que los nuevos casos se han estabilizado en todo el estado y el 80 por ciento de los californianos que cumplen los requisitos han recibido al menos una dosis de la vacuna. Por el contrario, Orrin Heatlie, un republicano que es sargento jubilado de la oficina del alguacil de la zona rural del norte de California y principal promotor de la revocatoria, no ha podido hacer campaña últimamente por la iniciativa que él mismo puso en marcha. En una entrevista por mensaje de texto, Heatlie dijo que estaba enfermo en casa con COVID-19.El panorama ha reforzado la afirmación del gobernador de que su destitución socavaría la voluntad de la mayoría de los californianos, y ha recordado a los votantes que la destitución era una posibilidad remota hasta la pandemia. Los californianos, que al principio apoyaban las órdenes sanitarias de Newsom, se cansaron de las complicadas órdenes sanitarias del gobernador. El descontento llegó a su punto álgido en noviembre, cuando Newsom fue visto sin mascarilla en un exclusivo restaurante de la región vitivinícola después de instar al público a evitar reunirse. Una orden judicial que ampliaba el plazo para la recogida de firmas debido a los cierres por la pandemia permitió a los partidarios de la revocación aprovechar el malestar.La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris en un mitin a favor del gobernador Gavin Newsom en San Leandro, California, el miércoles.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesEn California hay 5,3 millones de republicanos, y aunque el estado no hace pública la afiliación partidista de las personas que firman las peticiones, los demócratas señalan que solo se necesitaban 1,5 millones de firmas de votantes para llevar la revocatoria a una elección especial. La mayor parte de la energía y el financiamiento iniciales llegaron de la extrema derecha: los habituales de Fox News, como Newt Gingrich y Mike Huckabee, promovieron la destitución. Los primeros mítines contaron con la presencia de activistas antivacunas, devotos de QAnon y manifestantes vestidos con el eslogan ‘Hacer grande a Estados Unidos de nuevo’.Y, según los demócratas, la derecha ganará a nivel nacional si Newsom es destituido. Si el escaño de la senadora Dianne Feinstein se abre prematuramente, el gobernador de California nombrará a su sustituto, y un republicano cambiaría el control de la cámara al Partido Republicano.Sin embargo, los observadores más veteranos señalan que el enfoque del gobernador también está probado en el tiempo.“La estrategia de Newsom ha consistido en recordar a los votantes lo que se le quitaría si se fuera, en lugar de lo que ha dado mientras está aquí”, escribió recientemente Joe Eskenazi, escritor político de San Francisco, en el sitio de noticias Mission Local, al señalar que el gobernador retrató de forma similar a un oponente progresista como “Gavin Newsom contra el abismo” en su campaña a la alcaldía de San Francisco en 2003.También es una variación de una estrategia desplegada en 2012 por Scott Walker, el exgobernador de Wisconsin y el único gobernador en la historia de Estados Unidos que ha vencido una revocatoria. Walker, un republicano del Tea Party, se enfrentó a una reacción adversa por sus esfuerzos para reducir los derechos de negociación colectiva de la mayoría de los trabajadores públicos. En lugar de adoptar una postura defensiva, Walker describió el intento de destitución como una toma de poder de los sindicatos de empleados públicos.Esta imagen sobrecargó la base republicana del estado y desató un torrente de dinero de donantes conservadores de fuera del estado. La victoria no solo salvó el puesto de Walker, sino que también impulsó su perfil político nacional.El futuro político de Newsom depende ahora de ese tipo de movilización. Las matemáticas están de su lado.Los demócratas superan en número a los republicanos casi dos a uno en California. Su campaña ha actuado con antelación para disuadir a cualquier aspirante demócrata fuerte. E incluso con sus críticos, Newsom parece tener más apoyo que cuando los californianos destituyeron al exgobernador Gray Davis y lo sustituyeron por Arnold Schwarzenegger en 2003. En aquel momento, siete de cada diez votantes desaprobaban la actuación de Davis.Las reglas de votación pandémica que impulsaron la participación a un récord de 81 por ciento de los votantes registrados en 2020 siguen vigentes, lo que permite que los más de 22 millones de votantes registrados del estado voten gratis por correo.Paul Mitchell, vicepresidente de Political Data Inc., un proveedor de información sobre los votantes que no se inclina por ningún partido, dijo que casi el 30 por ciento del electorado ya ha votado, con la participación de los votantes independientes significativamente retrasada y con muchas más boletas demócratas que republicanas hasta ahora.“Si llegan al 60 por ciento de participación”, dijo Mitchell, “es casi matemáticamente imposible que Newsom pierda”.Orrin Heatlie, la figura más visible a favor de la revocatoria, en su casa en Folsom, California, en febreroMax Whittaker para The New York TimesPero no hay garantía de que lleguen a esa “cifra dorada”. La participación entre los votantes jóvenes y latinos ha sido “ínfima”, dijo. Hasta hace poco, las encuestas mostraban que muchos demócratas no sabían que había una revocatoria.Y Newsom, a pesar del 53 por ciento de aprobación de su trabajo, no ha tenido la popularidad personal de, por ejemplo, el exgobernador Jerry Brown, su predecesor. El gobernador debe rechazar la destitución con decisión, dijo Steve Maviglio, un consultor político demócrata de California, “porque si el margen es estrecho, habrá sangre en el agua”, lo que podría complicar la reelección de Newsom en 2022.La papeleta de votación pide a los californianos que respondan a dos preguntas: ¿debería Newsom ser destituido, y si es así, quién debería reemplazarlo? Si una mayoría simple vota no a la primera pregunta, la segunda es discutible. Pero si se aprueba la destitución, el puesto de gobernador será para el aspirante más votado, aunque solo una pequeña parte del electorado lo elija, una característica que ha provocado pedidos de reforma por parte de los críticos.Nathan Click, antiguo portavoz del gobernador que ahora trabaja en contra de la destitución, dijo que el equipo de Newsom comprendió desde el principio que tendría que presentar sus argumentos con rapidez. Ya en diciembre —seis meses antes de que la revocatoria estuviera oficialmente calificada para la votación— los partidarios del gobernador hicieron eco del lenguaje de sus respuestas a la petición oficial, denunciando a los proponentes como “extremistas antivacunas pro-Trump”.En enero, el presidente del Partido Demócrata del estado llamó a la destitución “un golpe de estado en California”, comparándolo con la insurrección del 6 de enero. Y en marzo, Newsom utilizó su discurso sobre el “estado del estado” para denunciar a los “críticos de California que están promoviendo una toma de poder político partidista”.Ahora, el nombre de la campaña de Newsom —“Paren la revocatoria republicana”— pretende movilizar al partido dominante del estado. Sus anuncios de televisión y las redes sociales imploran a los votantes que detengan la “descarada toma de poder republicana”.En sus discursos, Newsom ataca al aspirante principal, el locutor conservador Larry Elder, como un clon de Trump que deshará imprudentemente los avances del estado en la lucha contra las infecciones por COVID-19 y “vandalizará” la identidad de California.Larry Elder, el aspirante principal en contra del gobernador Newsom, en un evento de campaña en Thousand Oaks, el lunesAllison Zaucha para The New York TimesAl igual que en el caso de Walker, la estrategia ha inspirado la recaudación de fondos. La ley estatal de financiación de campañas limita las donaciones a los aspirantes individuales, pero trata las revocatorias como iniciativas de los votantes, permitiendo contribuciones ilimitadas. Elder —cuya retórica trumpista ha sido descrita como un regalo para Newsom— ha recaudado hasta ahora unos 13 millones de dólares; los cheques para el esfuerzo antirevocatoria de más de 100.000 dólares han sumado por sí solos más de 50 millones de dólares. Los sindicatos de empleados públicos y los progresistas han sido especialmente generosos con el gobernador.Los defensores de la revocación predicen un final más reñido de lo esperado, pero en cualquier caso, dicen, han tenido éxito. Mike Netter, quien ayudó a lanzar la petición de Heatlie, dijo que su grupo de base ha crecido hasta unos 400.000 californianos que ya están organizando medidas de votación sobre la elección de la escuela y otras causas conservadoras.“Nadie creía en nosotros, pero nos hemos metido en la boleta, tenemos a toda esta gente y no vamos a desaparecer”, dijo Netter. “No creo que nadie esperara que Gavin Newsom tuviera que gastar 68 millones de dólares para que la carrera estuviera tan reñida”.Shawn Hubler es corresponsal de California radicada en Sacramento. Antes de unirse al Times en 2020, pasó casi dos décadas cubriendo el estado para Los Angeles Times como reportera itinerante, columnista y escritora de la revista. Ha compartido tres premios Pulitzer. @ShawnHubler More

  • in

    Newsom’s Strategy for California Recall: It’s Me or the Abyss

    Ahead of the vote on Tuesday, the governor is running not so much on his own policies as against the influence of a certain former president.SACRAMENTO — As the campaign to oust him heads into its final weekend, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California is hammering home the choice he has presented to voters since the start of the recall — Donald J. Trump or him.“We defeated Trump last year, and thank you, but we haven’t defeated Trumpism,” the governor has repeated for the past two weeks in a blitz of campaign stops and Zoom calls. From vaccine resistance to climate denial, he says, everything that terrified California liberals about the last president is on the ballot. And far more than his own personal future hangs in the balance: “This is a matter of life and death.”His opponents dispute that. The governor, they say, is the problem, and the recall never would have come to an election had a critical mass of the state not resented his pandemic restrictions on businesses and classrooms, even as his own finances were secure and his own children got in-person instruction. The former president, they note, is not a candidate. “Newsom is scaremongering,” David Sacks, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist supporting the recall, tweeted recently.Only three governors have faced recall votes in the United States before Mr. Newsom, and he — and the Democratic establishment — are going all-out in presenting the effort as a radical power grab, with some partisans even comparing it at one point to the violent Jan. 6 attempt to block President Biden’s election.By invoking Mr. Trump as his opponent of choice, Mr. Newsom is reprising a message that he has used in the past to blunt criticism effectively, while also testing a strategy that is likely to be echoed by Democrats seeking to mobilize voters in midterm races across the country next year.In effect, the leader Californians elected in a 2018 landslide is running less on the Democratic policies of a Democratic incumbent than on an urgent if familiar call to action against an existential threat to blue state values.Polls suggest Mr. Newsom is making his case and has pulled ahead of his opponents — an abrupt focusing of Democratic minds after likely voters indicated earlier this summer that the race might be tightening. A survey released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California found that only 39 percent of likely voters, mostly Republican, support the recall, while 58 percent plan to vote no.His edge among female voters has been especially strong, buttressed by campaign appearances in recent days by Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. President Biden will campaign with him on Monday and former President Barack Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders appear in his campaign ads.He has amassed some $70 million in anti-recall contributions. That’s less than the hundreds of millions of dollars unleashed last year, for instance, in a fight over an initiative involving labor protections for gig workers, but still far more than the money amassed by the other 46 challengers on the ballot. And his team has mobilized a massive get-out-the-vote effort with tens of thousands of volunteers texting tens of millions of voters and canvassing for him in seven languages.The governor also has had progress against Covid-19 to tout, with new cases plateauing across the state as 80 percent of eligible Californians report having gotten at least one vaccine dose. In contrast, Orrin Heatlie, a retired Republican sheriff’s sergeant from rural Northern California and the recall’s lead proponent, has not been able to campaign lately for the initiative he started. In a text message interview, Mr. Heatlie said he was sick at home with Covid-19.The landscape has bolstered the governor’s claim that his removal would undermine the will of a majority of Californians, and reminded voters that the recall was a long shot until the pandemic. Initially supportive of Mr. Newsom’s health orders, Californians wearied of the governor’s complicated directives. Dissatisfaction boiled over in November, when Mr. Newsom was spotted mask-free at an exclusive wine country restaurant after urging the public to avoid gathering. A court order extending the deadline for signature gathering because of pandemic shutdowns allowed recall proponents to capitalize on the unease.Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally for Gov. Gavin Newsom in San Leandro, Calif., on Wednesday.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesCalifornia has 5.3 million Republicans, and while the state does not release the party affiliations of people who sign petitions, Democrats note that only 1.5 million voter signatures were required to bring the recall to a special election. Most of the early energy and funding came from the far right: Fox News regulars such as Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee promoted the recall. Early rallies were heavily attended by anti-vaccine activists, QAnon devotees and demonstrators in “Make America Great Again” gear.And, Democrats note, the right stands to gain nationally if Mr. Newsom is recalled. If Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat opens prematurely, California’s governor will appoint her replacement, and a Republican would shift control of the chamber to the G.O.P.Longtime observers note, however, that the governor’s approach also is time-tested.“Newsom’s strategy has been to remind voters what would be taken away if he were gone rather than what he’s given while he’s here,” Joe Eskenazi, a San Francisco political writer, recently wrote in the news site Mission Local, noting that the governor similarly framed a progressive opponent as “Gavin Newsom vs. The Abyss” in his 2003 San Francisco mayoral campaign.It is also a variation on a strategy deployed in 2012 by Scott Walker, the former governor of Wisconsin and the only governor in U.S. history to have beaten a recall. A tea party Republican, Mr. Walker faced backlash for efforts to curtail collective-bargaining rights for most public workers. Rather than assume a defensive posture, Mr. Walker portrayed the attempt to remove him as a public employee union power grab.The portrayal supercharged the state’s Republican base and unleashed a torrent of money from out-of-state conservative donors. The victory not only saved Mr. Walker’s job but also boosted his national political profile.Mr. Newsom’s political future now rides on that kind of mobilization. The math is on his side.Democrats outnumber Republicans almost two to one in California. His campaign acted early to deter any strong Democratic challengers. And even with his critics, Mr. Newsom appears to have more support than when Californians recalled former Gov. Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. At the time, seven in 10 voters disapproved of Mr. Davis’s performance.Pandemic voting rules that boosted turnout to a record 81 percent of registered voters in 2020 remain in place, allowing all of the state’s 22 million-plus registered voters to vote for free by mail.Paul Mitchell, vice president at Political Data Inc., a nonpartisan supplier of voter information, said more than a third of the electorate has already voted, with participation by independent voters significantly lagging and far more Democratic than Republican ballots so far.“If they get to 60 percent turnout,” Mr. Mitchell said, “it’s almost mathematically impossible for Newsom to lose.”Orrin Heatlie, the recall’s lead proponent, at his home in Folsom, Calif., in February. Max Whittaker for The New York TimesBut there’s no guarantee they’ll hit that “golden number.” Participation among young and Latino voters has been “paltry,” he said. Until recently, polls showed that many Democrats were unaware there was a recall.And Mr. Newsom, notwithstanding 53 percent job approval ratings, has lacked the personal popularity of, say, former Gov. Jerry Brown, his predecessor. The governor must beat back the recall decisively, said Steve Maviglio, a California Democratic political consultant, “because if the margin is close, there’ll be blood in the water,” potentially complicating Mr. Newsom’s re-election in 2022.The recall ballot asks Californians to answer two questions: Should Mr. Newsom be recalled, and if so, who should replace him? If a simple majority votes no on the first question, the second is moot. But if the recall passes, the governor’s post will go to the challenger with the most votes, even if only a tiny sliver of the electorate chooses that person — a feature that has prompted calls for reform from critics.Nathan Click, a former spokesman for the governor who is now working against the recall, said Mr. Newsom’s team understood early that they would need to make their case quickly. As early as December — six months before the recall would officially qualify for the ballot — the governor’s supporters were echoing the language of their official petition responses, decrying proponents as “anti-vaccine pro-Trump extremists.”In January, the state Democratic Party chairman called the recall “a California coup,” comparing it to the Jan. 6 insurrection. And in March, Mr. Newsom used his “state of the state” speech to denounce “California critics out there who are promoting partisan political power grabs.”Now, the very name of Mr. Newsom’s campaign — “Stop the Republican Recall” — aims to mobilize the state’s dominant party. His television ads and social media implore voters to stop the “boldfaced Republican power grab.”In speeches, Mr. Newsom attacks the front-running challenger, the conservative talk radio host Larry Elder, as a Trump clone who would recklessly undo the state’s progress in curbing Covid-19 infections and “vandalize” California’s identity.Larry Elder, front-running challenger to Gov. Gavin Newsom, at a campaign event in Thousand Oaks, Calif., on Monday.Allison Zaucha for The New York TimesAs it did for Mr. Walker, the strategy has inspired gushers of funding. State campaign finance law caps donations to individual challengers but treats recalls as voter initiatives, allowing unlimited contributions. Mr. Elder, whose Trumpian rhetoric has been described as a gift in itself to Mr. Newsom, has so far raised about $13 million; checks to the anti-recall effort for more than $100,000 have alone totaled more than $50 million. Public employee unions and progressives have been especially generous to the governor.Recall proponents predict a closer-than-expected finish, but either way, they say, they have succeeded. Mike Netter, who helped launch Mr. Heatlie’s petition, said their grass roots group has grown to some 400,000 Californians already organizing ballot measures on school choice and other conservative causes.“No one believed in us, but we got on the ballot, we have all these people and we’re not going away,” said Mr. Netter. “I don’t think anyone ever expected Gavin Newsom to have to spend $68 million just for the race to be this close.” More

  • in

    Mountain of Money Fuels Newsom’s Surge to Recall Election Finish Line

    The California governor has taken full advantage of the state’s loose financing rules for recall elections, overpowering Republican challengers for whom the cavalry never arrived.Gov. Gavin Newsom’s bid to fend off a recall in California has been bolstered by an infusion of tens of millions of dollars from big donors in recent months that delivered him an enormous financial advantage over his Republican rivals in the race’s final stretch.There had been moments over the summer when Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, had appeared vulnerable in public polls, as California’s unique recall rules seemed to provide an opening to conservatives in one of the most reliably Democratic states in the nation. But Mr. Newsom raised more than $70 million this year into an account to battle the recall, much of it in July and August, allowing him and his allies to dominate the television airwaves and out-advertise his opponents online.California has no limits on donations to recall committees, and Mr. Newsom has taken full advantage of those loose rules. His contributions have included an early $3 million from Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix; $500,000 from the liberal philanthropist George Soros; and $500,000 from the Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg. Dr. Priscilla Chan, a philanthropist and the wife of the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, contributed $750,000, and the real estate magnate George Marcus gave $1 million.Millions of dollars more have come from interest groups with business before the state, including labor unions representing service workers, teachers and prison guards, the real estate industry and Native American tribes that operate casinos.On the Republican side, the financial cavalry never arrived.Mr. Newsom’s aggressive efforts to keep any other prominent Democrat from running consolidated the party’s financial might toward protecting his post. In a California recall, voters consider two questions: first, whether to recall the governor and second, whom the replacement should be. During the last recall election, in 2003, Democrats struggled to sell the famously unwieldy slogan “no on recall; yes on Bustamante” as Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, swept into the governorship.This year, Democrats and Republicans in the state seem to agree on one thing ahead of the election on Tuesday: The money mattered. All told, Mr. Newsom has spent more battling the recall than he did on his 2018 election.“If Gavin didn’t raise the money, given the amount of apathy and angst, he could have lost,” said Kerman Maddox, a Democratic strategist in California who has also worked as a party fund-raiser. “I’m just going to be real.”Dave Gilliard, a Republican strategist involved in the recall efforts, said of the cash gulf: “It’s definitely made a difference.”Despite the large sums involved in the recall, the race’s total cost is actually less than that of a single ballot measure last year, when Uber and Lyft teamed up to successfully press for rules allowing app-based companies to continue to classify drivers and other workers as independent contractors. That ballot measure drew roughly $225 million in spending because of the state’s many large and costly media markets, including Los Angeles.Mr. Newsom used his financial edge to swamp his Republican rivals and proponents of the recall on television by a nearly four-to-one ratio in July and August, spending $20.4 million to the recall supporters’ $5.6 million, according to data provided by the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. Some of those ads framed the race in the starkest of terms, with one spot saying the recall’s outcome was “a matter of life and death” because of the coronavirus. On YouTube and Google, the financial disparity was even more stark. Mr. Newsom has spent nearly $4.1 million, according to Google disclosure records, while his leading Republican opponent, the radio talk show host Larry Elder, has spent a little more than $600,000.Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix, gave $3 million to Mr. Newsom’s campaign.Cayce Clifford for The New York TimesDr. Priscilla Chan gave $750,000. California has no limits on donations to recall committees.Steve Jennings/Getty ImagesThe sudden emergence of Mr. Elder as the Republican front-runner — he entered the contest in July and had raised more than $13 million by the end of August — provided Mr. Newsom with a ready-made Republican foil. An unabashed conservative, Mr. Elder had left a trail of radio clips in which he outlined positions unpopular with Democrats on issues like the environment, abortion and the minimum wage.“Lo and behold, he got a gift from the gods in the name of Larry Elder, the conservative African American version of Donald Trump,” Mr. Maddox said, adding that the specter of an Elder governorship had motivated big and small donors alike.It had not always been clear that Mr. Newsom would have such a decisive cash advantage. Some party contributors were slow to engage. Ron Conway, a San Francisco-based venture capitalist who organized early anti-recall efforts and fund-raising in the spring in the tech community, said he had been dismissed early on. “At the time, many people thought I was being alarmist,” he wrote in an email. “They don’t think that anymore!”State records show that nearly two-thirds of donations of $10,000 or more to Mr. Newsom’s main anti-recall account came after July 1. And overall, more than 80 percent of the donations over $10,000 to that account came from inside California.“Democrats would rather not have to fund an off-year race in California,” said Dan Newman, an adviser to Mr. Newsom. “But they didn’t hesitate once it was clear what’s at stake.”Mr. Newsom’s campaign said it expected to pass 600,000 donations by the election after running a robust online donation program. Still, much of the money came from giant contributions, with $48.2 million in his main anti-recall account from donations of $100,000 or more.In late August, at a donor retreat in Aspen, Colo., for contributors to the Democratic Governors Association, attendees said there was some grumbling and irritation at the need to divert any resources to a state as blue as California — especially given how many tough governors’ races are set to unfold in 2022.The governors association has sent $5.5 million to the Newsom operation opposing the recall so far.“It doesn’t bode well for Democrats in 2022 if they have to burn millions of dollars on a recall in the most liberal state in America,” said Jesse Hunt, the communications director for the Republican Governors Association.From the start, Mr. Newsom’s campaign framed the recall as a Republican power grab, which made it particularly unappealing for some bigger G.O.P. contributors to inject themselves into the race, according to both national and California Republicans. The state’s unusual requirement that the names of top donors appear in advertisements was also a turnoff, along with general disbelief that California could ever truly be flipped.“You have a lot of people who are for us but who never believe it could be done,” said Anne Hyde Dunsmore, the campaign manager of Rescue California, one of the pro-recall efforts. “No, the money didn’t come in, and no, it wasn’t for a lack of asking.”Larry Elder, who has emerged as Mr. Newsom’s leading challenger, raised $13 million in his first two months in the race.Allison Zaucha for The New York TimesSome significant checks did come. Mr. Elder received $1 million from Geoffrey Palmer, a real estate developer and top Republican donor. Saul Fox, a private equity executive, made a $100,000 donation. And Mr. Elder quickly lapped the rest of the Republican field in fund-raising with big and small donations.John Cox, the Republican who lost to Mr. Newsom in a 2018 landslide, has spent millions of his own dollars running again. Among his costly moves was campaigning with a 1,000-pound Kodiak bear named Tag, who also appeared in Mr. Cox’s ads.Kevin Faulconer, a Republican former mayor of San Diego, raised more than $4 million for his candidacy, and Kevin Kiley, a Republican state assemblyman, raised more than $1 million.Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender activist and former Olympian, received a wave of publicity upon her entrance to the race. But her bid, and her fund-raising, have mostly fallen flat. As of late August, Ms. Jenner had raised less than $1 million and had less than $28,000 in cash on hand — with more than that in unpaid bills.Gale Kaufman, a Sacramento-based Democratic strategist, said the fractured and financially weak Republican field “kept them from ever being able to create a ‘yes’ campaign” — for the recall — “that resonated.”“They’re not speaking with one voice and they’re not saying the same thing,” she said.Mike Netter, a Republican who was one of the recall’s early grass-roots organizers, was frustrated by Democratic attacks that the push was a Republican effort to seize power. He said that little conservative support had materialized after the recall proponents put the measure on the ballot.“If we’re supposedly so Republican-driven, where’s our money? Where’s the air cover from our supposed right-wing secret organizations?” Mr. Netter said, citing the lack of big donations from the party and leading in-state Republicans like Representative Devin Nunes. “No one has believed in us this whole way. And it’s not like we have that kind of money. It’s not like the Koch brothers are my cousins or something. I went to San Diego State.”Shawn Hubler More

  • in

    How Seriously Broken Is California’s Recall Election?

    California’s process for recalling its governor is so broken, some Democratic strategists are encouraging a vote for a Republican former San Diego mayor because “he’s not insane.” Millions of mail-in ballots were already cast before the state even released a list of qualified write-in candidates to potentially replace the sitting governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, leaving voters to choose from a list of 46 mostly gadflies and wannabes.Voters are asked to answer two questions: First, do they want to recall Mr. Newsom, and second, if he is recalled, whom do they want to replace him? The governor can be recalled through a simple majority vote. His replacement needs only a plurality, no matter how small. This means that Mr. Newsom could win the support of 49 percent of voters and still be recalled. A candidate vying to replace him could be elected with half of that support, or even less.Election rules don’t allow for Mr. Newsom’s name to appear on the ballot, as is the case in a number of other states with recall rules, or for him to serve if he wins as a write-in candidate. That structure may amount to unconstitutional disenfranchisement. Another wrinkle: In order for votes for write-in candidates to count, the person written in must have filed paperwork to qualify. The list of qualified write-in candidates wasn’t made public until last Friday, less than two weeks before polls close on Sept. 14 — but weeks after mail-in ballots were sent out.Scrapping the century-old recall system altogether would deny California voters an important check on their top elected official. Whatever the result of the Newsom recall effort, however, the process is well past due for an overhaul.For starters, California’s recalls can happen in off-years, which makes them ripe for manipulation by the minority party. There have been at least 179 recall attempts in California since the measure was adopted by voters in 1911, and every governor since 1960 has faced at least one.The timing also means a far smaller electorate ends up determining who is the state’s leader. Special elections will always draw fewer voters, but for something as consequential as the governorship of the country’s most populous state, every effort should be made to increase turnout, including potentially requiring them to be held during regularly scheduled votes. Voters in off-cycle elections generally skew older, whiter and more conservative, a recent study led by the University of California, San Diego, found. In other words, not very representative of California’s population.Early polling suggested that as few as one-third of the state’s 22.3 million registered voters may participate this time — and they are facing a dizzying array of choices for Mr. Newsom’s potential successor. The slate is a ragtag bunch including the former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner, YouTube star Kevin Paffrath and mononymous billboard personality Angelyne. Kevin Faulconer, a former San Diego mayor, is among the few with any prior political experience.The leading candidate is the Republican talk-radio host Larry Elder, whose conservative policy positions — including his opposition to mask mandates, abortion rights and a minimum wage, as well as his troubling views on women’s rights and climate change — aren’t in line with any statewide election result in California for decades.Yet polls show he is the top candidate with the support of just 20 percent of likely voters. In California’s recall scheme, he could assume the governor’s office with well under two million votes, compared with the 7.7 million votes Mr. Newsom won in the regular 2018 election.“The system as it’s designed allows a minority faction that really has no hope of winning statewide election to get a recall on the ballot,” said Chris Elmendorf, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, who studies elections.Some Californians point to the last recall election, in 2003, as evidence that the system works. That year, voters booted Gray Davis, a Democrat, and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. While Mr. Schwarzenegger fell short of winning an outright majority, at least more people voted for him than voted to keep Mr. Davis.But is that good enough? There are numerous ways that California should reform its recall system.First, it ought to shift the burden of winning majority support from the incumbent — who was, after all, duly elected by the voters — and put it on the recall effort. There is a reason that impeaching and removing the president requires not only a majority vote in the House but also a supermajority in the Senate. In a democracy, the results of a regularly scheduled election should not be overturned before the next election except in the most extraordinary circumstances.Other states with recall provisions, like Minnesota and Washington, require an act of malfeasance or a conviction for a serious crime for the recall to proceed. Mr. Newsom’s maskless dinner at a high-end restaurant to celebrate a lobbyist’s birthday, which buttressed the recall effort, was certainly hypocritical and tone-deaf, but it shouldn’t alone be grounds for early eviction from office.Another needed reform is to make it harder to get a recall on the ballot in the first place. Among the 18 other states with voter recall measures, none have a lower threshold than California’s. It takes signatures equal to just 12 percent of the total votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election to initiate a recall in California. In many other states, the threshold is 25 percent. In Kansas, the bar is 40 percent. In 2020 alone, at least 14 governors nationwide faced recall efforts, but only California’s attempt proceeded to a ballot, according to Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at Wagner College’s Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform and the author of a recent book on recall elections. That’s due in part to those other states’ higher thresholds. California already has a more stringent 20 percent standard for recalls of state lawmakers and judges. That would make sense for governors as well.Finally, California’s system discourages the sitting governor’s party from backing a replacement candidate for fear of bolstering the recall effort. That’s why Mr. Newsom asked voters to vote “no” on the recall and leave the second question blank. Doing so makes it even more likely that a candidate from the opposing party will win.Another fix would be to hold the vote on the recall itself on a different day than the vote on a successor, as several other states do. That would give replacement candidates time to put together a campaign on the issues, rather than just on the recall itself.Alternatively, lawmakers should consider requiring a recalled governor’s seat to be turned over to the democratically elected lieutenant governor, who would otherwise assume the post if the governor died, resigned or was impeached.Properly conducted, recalls can serve an important function in representative democracies, a salve for buyer’s remorse in extreme circumstances. But it should be in the state’s interest to have the broadest and most diverse electorate possible. That’s not now the case in California, where many people aren’t even aware the recall election is happening, even though ballots were sent to all registered voters in the state.A system that allows a legitimately elected governor to be replaced with a fringe candidate winning only a small fraction of the vote is in desperate need of reform. California voters should vote no on the recall question, and the Legislature should, at last, begin the work of revising the state’s recall elections.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    One Thing We Can Agree on Is That We’re Becoming a Different Country

    A highly charged ideological transition reflecting a “massive four-decade-long shift in political values and attitudes among more educated people — a shift from concern with traditional materialist issues like redistribution to a concern for public goods like the environment and diversity” is a driving force in the battle between left and right, according to Richard Florida, an urbanologist at the University of Toronto.This ideological transition has been accompanied by the concentration of liberal elites in urban centers, Florida continued in an email,brought on by the dramatic shift to a knowledge economy, which expresses itself on the left as “wokeness” and on the right as populism. I worry that the middle is dropping out of American politics. This is not just an economic or cultural or political phenomenon, it is inextricably geographic or spatial as different groups pack and cluster into different kinds of communities.Recent decades have witnessed what Dennis Chong, a political scientist at the University of Southern California, describes in an email as “a demographic realignment of political tolerance in the U.S. that first became evident in the late 1980s-early 1990s.”Before that, Chong pointed out, “the college educated, and younger generations, were among the most tolerant groups in the society of all forms of social and political nonconformity.” Since the 1990s, “these groups have become significantly less tolerant of hate speech pertaining to race, gender and social identities.”Chong argued that “the expansion of equal rights for racial and ethnic minorities, women, L.G.B.T.Q. and other groups that have suffered discrimination has caused a re-evaluation of the harms of slurs and other derogatory expressions in professional and social life.”The result?“In a striking reversal,” Chong wrote, “liberals are now consistently less tolerant than conservatives of a wide range of controversial speech about racial, gender and religious identities.”Pippa Norris, a lecturer in comparative politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School — together with Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of Michigan who died in May — has explored this extraordinary shift from materialist to postmaterialist values in advanced countries, the movement from a focus on survival to a focus on self-expression, which reflects profound changes in a society’s existential conditions, including in the United States.In an Aug. 21 paper, “Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality?” Norris writes, “In postindustrial societies characterized by predominately liberal social cultures, like the U.S., Sweden, and U.K., right-wing scholars were most likely to perceive that they faced an increasingly chilly climate.”Using data from a global survey, World of Political Science, 2019, Norris created a “Cancel Culture Index” based on political scientists’ responses to three questions asking whether “aspects of academic life had got better, no change, or got worse, using the 5-point scale: 1. Respect for open debate from diverse perspectives, 2. Pressures to be ‘politically correct’ and 3. Academic freedom to teach and research.”Using this measure, Norris found that “American scholars on the moderate right and far right report experiencing worsening pressures to be politically correct, limits on academic freedom and a lack of respect for open debate,” compared with the views of moderate and more left-wing scholars:The proportion of those holding traditionally socially conservative values has gradually experienced a tipping point in recent decades, as this group shifts from hegemonic to minority status on college campuses and in society, heightening ideological and partisan polarization. In this regard, the reported experience of a chilly climate in academia among right-wing scholars seems likely to reflect their reactions to broader cultural and structural shifts in postindustrial societies.Inglehart, in his 2018 book, “The Rise of Postmaterialist Values in the West and the World,” described how increasing affluence and economic security, especially for educated elites, have beentransforming the politics and cultural norms of advanced industrial societies. A shift from materialist to postmaterialist value priorities has brought new political issues to the center of the stage and provided much of the impetus for new political movements. It has split existing political parties and given rise to new ones and it is changing the criteria by which people evaluate their subjective sense of well-being.Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist at the University of London and the author of “Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities,” argued in a series of emails that the views of white liberals are shaped by their distinctive set of priorities. In contrast to white conservatives, Kaufmann wrote, “white liberals have low attachment to traditional collective identities (race, nation, religion) but as high attachment to moral values and political beliefs as conservatives. This makes the latter most salient for them.” According to Kaufmann, white liberals “have invested heavily in universalist ethical values.”Matthias Jung/laif, via ReduxIn Kaufmann’s view, a new, assertive ideology has emerged on the left, and the strength of this wing is reflected in its ability to influence the decision making of university administrators:In universities, only 10 percent of social science and humanities faculty support cancellation (firing, suspension or other severe punishments) of those with controversial views on race and gender, with about half opposed and 40 percent neither supporting nor opposed. And yet, this does not appear to cut through to the administrations, who often discipline staff.On Sept. 4, The Economist published a cover story, “The Illiberal Left: How Did American ‘Wokeness’ Jump From Elite Schools to Everyday Life?” that argues that there is:a loose constellation of ideas that is changing the way that mostly white, educated, left-leaning Americans view the world. This credo still lacks a definitive name: it is variously known as left-liberal identity politics, social-justice activism or, simply, wokeness.From another angle, Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at Harvard and a former Obama administration official, asks in “The Power of the Normal,” a 2018 paper:Why do we come to see political or other conduct as acceptable, when we had formerly seen it as unacceptable, immoral, or even horrific? Why do shifts occur in the opposite direction? What accounts for the power of “the new normal”?Sunstein is especially concerned with how new norms expand in scope:Once conduct comes to be seen as part of an unacceptable category — abusiveness, racism, lack of patriotism, microaggression, sexual harassment — real or apparent exemplars that are not so egregious, or perhaps not objectionable at all, might be taken as egregious, because they take on the stigma now associated with the category.Sunstein is careful to note, “It is important to say that on strictly normative grounds, the less horrific cases might also be horrific.”A key player in this process is what Sunstein calls “the opprobrium entrepreneur.” The motivations of opprobrium entrepreneurs:may well be altruistic. They might think that certain forms of mistreatment are as bad as, or nearly as bad as, what are taken to the prototypical cases, and they argue that the underlying concept (abuse, bullying, prejudice), properly conceived, picks up their cases as well. Their goal is to create some kind of cascade, informational or reputational, by which the concept moves in their preferred direction. In the context of abuse, bullying, prejudice, and sexual harassment, both informational and reputational cascades have indeed occurred.Sunstein cites “microaggressions” as an area that “has exploded,” writing:At one point, the University of California at Berkeley signaled its willingness to consider disciplining people for making one of a large number of statements,” including “America is a melting pot,” “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”Opprobrium entrepreneurs can be found on both sides of the aisle.Jeffrey Adam Sachs, a political scientist at Acadia University, has written about a flood tide of Republican-sponsored bills in state legislatures designed to prohibit teaching of “everything from feminism and racial equity to calls for decolonization.” In an article in February, “The New War On Woke,” Sachs wrote:One of the principal criticisms of today’s left-wing culture is that it suppresses unpopular speech. In response, these bills would make left-wing speech illegal. Conservatives (falsely) call universities ‘brainwashing factories’ and fret about the death of academic freedom. Their solution is to fire professors they don’t like.Sachs’ bottom line: “Once you let government get into the censorship business, no speech is safe.”Zachary Goldberg, a graduate student at Georgia State, has researched “the moral, emotional and technological underpinnings of the ‘Great Awokening’ — the rapid and recent liberalization of racial and immigration attitudes among white liberals and Democrats” for his doctoral thesis.Goldberg has produced data from the 2020 American National Election Studies survey showing that white liberals, in contrast to white moderates and conservatives, rate minorities higher on what political scientists call a thermometer scale than they do whites.One of the less recognized factors underlying efforts by conservatives and liberals to enforce partisan orthodoxy lies in the pressure to maintain party loyalty at a time when the Democrats and Republicans are struggling to manage coalitions composed of voters with an ever-expanding number of diverse commitments — economic, cultural, racial — that often do not cohere.Jonathan Rodden, a Stanford political scientist, elaborated in an email:For issue activists and party leaders in the United States, management of internal party heterogeneity is a central task. In order to get what they want, the core of “true believers” on issue x must develop strategies for managing those with more moderate or even opposing views, who identify with the party primarily because of issue y. One strategy is persuasion on issue x via messaging, from social media to partisan cable television, aimed at wayward co-partisans. Another is to demonize the out-party on issue y in an effort to convince voters that even if they disagree with the in-party on issue x, the costs of allowing the out-party to win are simply too high. A final strategy is to relentlessly enforce norms by shaming and ostracizing nonconformists.I asked William Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings who has written extensively about Democratic Party conflicts, what role he sees white liberal elites playing in the enforcement of progressive orthodoxies. He wrote back:You ask specifically about “white liberal elites.” I wonder whether the dominant sentiment is guilt as opposed to (say) fear and ambition. Many participants in these institutions are terrified of being caught behind a rapidly shifting social curve and of being charged with racism. As a result, they bend over backward to use the most up-to-date terminology and to lend public support to policies they may privately oppose. The fear of losing face within, or being expelled from, the community of their peers drives much of their behavior.For some white liberals, Galston continued:adopting cutting-edge policies on race can serve as a way of enhancing status among their peers and for a few, it is a way of exercising power over others. If you know that people within your institution are afraid to speak out, you can get them to go along with policies that they would have opposed in different circumstances.Instead of guilt, Galston argued, “this behavior is just as likely to reflect leadership that lacks purpose and core convictions and that seeks mainly to keep the ship afloat, wherever it may be headed.”“Amidst this sea of analytical uncertainties, I am increasingly confident of one thing: a backlash is building,” Galston wrote.The policies of elite private schools reported on the front page of The New York Times will not command majority support, even among white liberals. As awareness of such policies spreads, their conservative foes will pounce, and many white liberals who went along with them will be unwilling to defend them. The fate of defunding the police is a harbinger of things to come.Jonathan Haidt, a professor at N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business, contends that a small constituency on the far left is playing an outsize role:Progressive activists make up 8 percent of the U.S. population, and they are the ones who frequently use terms like “white supremacy culture” and “power structures.” This group is the second whitest of all the groups (after the far right), yet they give the coldest “feeling thermometer” ratings to whites and the warmest to Blacks. In this group there does seem to be some true feelings of guilt and shame about being white.Haidt contends that “the animating emotion” for acquiescence to the demands of this type of progressive activist by those with less extreme views:is fear, not guilt or shame. I have heard from dozens of leaders of universities, companies, and other organizations in the last few years about the pressures they are under to enact D.E.I. (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies that are not supported by research, or to say things that they believe are not true. The vast majority of these people are on the left but are not progressive activists. They generally give in to pressure because the alternative is that they and their organization will be called racist, not just within the organization by their younger employees but on social media.How do things look now?“The First Amendment on Campus 2020 Report: College Students’ Views of Free Expression,” a study produced by the Knight Foundation based on a survey of 3,000 students, found strong support for free speech. The report noted that “68 percent regard citizens’ free speech rights as being ‘extremely important’ to democracy” and “that 81 percent support a campus environment where students are exposed to all types of speech, even if they may find it offensive.”At the same time, however, “Most college students believe efforts at diversity and inclusion ‘frequently’ (27 percent) or ‘occasionally’ (49 percent) come into conflict with free speech rights,” and “63 percent of students agree that the climate on their campus deters students from expressing themselves openly, up from 54 percent in 2016.”Similarly, according to the Knight survey, trends on social media from 2016 to 2020 were all negative:Fewer students now (29 percent) than in 2016 (41 percent) say discussion on social media is usually civil. More students than in the past agree that social media can stifle free speech — both because people block those whose views they disagree with (60 percent, up from 48 percent in 2016) and because people are afraid of being attacked or shamed by those who disagree with them (58 percent, up from 49 percent in 2016).It’s not too much to say that the social and cultural changes of the past four decades have been cataclysmic. The signs of it are everywhere. Donald Trump rode the coattails of these issues into office. Could he — or someone else who has been watching closely — do it again?The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More