Could Republican hopes be dashed in California?

[HershOstropoler]

"Davis's lawyers point to a provision of the recall law in which it says a new election for governor will be held "if appropriate"."

Hmm... so is it really mandatory to have the recall combined with the election? Or could there be an election later on?

For the overall topic, I have to say banana.

[Ned]

HO, Davis is a doomed politician. No one is listening to him anymore. Not even his own party.

This said, I don't understand the "if appropriate" language myself. It could mean that such an election should be held if there is no constitutional successor. In the case of the governor, the Lt. Gov. is supposed to succeed automatically.

The courts need to rule on this soon. The nomination deadline is Aug. 9.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


No, but I don't honestly expect any candidate to break 33%. The 1% claim just sounded so much more dramatic.

that's a good thing

the whole 50% to one person thing is just a crappy fact of life that is fostered on us by the two party system

I would be much happier if there were 4 major parties and the president was often voted in with 25% of the vote

Jon Miller

[rev]

Davis needs to go.

California got scammed by the power companies (Enron, for example), who merely turned off the power to sell what power they had remaining at incredible prices. And, of course, this was used to justify the argument that there needed to be more deregulation, no price caps, and more publically-sponsored utilities built. Even the White House (after Mr. Cheney consulted with some energy industry-sponsored lobbyists and CEOs) came out against price caps, which would have fixed the whole problem.

Overall, the amount Californians got scammed for exceeds the current state deficit.

If Davis were interested in the interests of his people, he would have directed every lawyer under his command to go after the energy companies and even the White House to get Californians' money back. Hell, maybe it would have even helped our national economy a bit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

California did put in price caps, and was outbid by other state's buyers (BPA and WAPA were also critically short in 2000 due to drought conditions and load growth), contributing further to the problem, not solving it.

If California had had some reasonable incentives for surplus capacity to be built, then you never would have had the problem. That lack of foresight preceded Davis, so he's not to blame for that component of the problem, just the parts he screwed up.

As far as "the amount California got scammed" why is it scamming in a bidirectional market where California utilities got wholesale power in prices from ZERO to 2.1 cents per kWh throughout most of the 1990's? Deregulation wasn't a problem, deregulation after two decades of ignoring resource needs and timed to coincide with peak demand and supply limitations was the problem.

BTW, everyone likes to ***** about Enron, but by price level, the two biggest vultures in the California power market was the California Dept. of Water Resources, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. So maybe the state needs to sue itself and the city of LA?

[rev]

Regardless of Davis' remarkably dull moves and insight, had these companies kept moving at full capacity (rather than releasing less than minimal power into the grid so that they could make thousands per kW), the California power crisis never would have happened.

*National* price caps (my bad) would have fixed the problem, which is why Grey Davis went to the White House to ask President Bush and Vice President Cheney to institute them.

That's my understanding of the facts, though I do bow before your superior knowledge of the situation.

[Jack_www]

Rev:

The price caps in california is what caused part of the problem and caused Edison and the other power companies to go into billions of dollars of debt and the verge of bankruptcy. Also price caps dont make more power to apear, but increase power loads when supply is low.

[Zkribbler]

There's been a court ruling on the "if applicable" language in the recall election provision. The court said that it applies only to positions like lieutenant governor (which, if vacate, is left that way) and associate justice (which, if vacate, is filled by appoinment).

The California Supreme Court dismissed 5 different challenges to the recall & election. Some federal cases remain, including one by the ACLU over the planned use of the same type of voting machines that gave us the handing-chad fiasco of Florida.

[Cyclotron]

This makes me think of those days when people talked about Davis' presidential hopes.

[st_swithin]

When? In your dreams?