Time to celebrate! (Maybe not at the French Laundry.) Photo: Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The California recall is over, and it did not provide much suspense. But while voters’ verdict was clear, the significance of Gavin Newsom’s win for the national landscape is less obvious. I spoke with national political correspondent Gabriel Debenedetti about how to interpret what went down in the Golden State.
Ben: In the end, it wasn’t close: Governor Gavin Newsom romped to victory in Tuesday’s California recall over his closest rival, Larry Elder, and a motley assortment of other Republicans. He’s up by 28 points as of this writing, so it’s very far from the close call Democrats were worried about a few weeks ago. Do you think this was ever actually a contest, or more a case of one poll leading people astray? (Or was that one scary poll the central reason this turned into such a landslide, since Democrats started paying attention?)
Gabriel: There were several distinct stages to this race. When I first wrote about it a few months ago, the prevailing feeling — even among Republicans — was, more or less, “This is ridiculous; Newsom will win easily.” All polling suggested that was the case, and there was no single dynamic on the ground hinting otherwise, even if people weren’t happy that COVID was stilllll around. No one actually thought that was Newsom’s fault!
But this summer, there was a definite concern in Dem circles, even in the White House. There’s been a bit of revisionist history already that one single poll showing the recall succeeding caused this epochal freakout that led to a surge in Dem votes. That’s not totally true; it is true that warning signs started flashing for Newsom a few months ago. That SurveyUSA poll was one thing. But there were plenty of other surveys, public and private, showing Republicans faaaar more engaged and showing Newsom failing to fully connect with Latino voters, for example, or with many base liberals in the LA area. All the coverage of those polls absolutely helped get people engaged — no one in Newsom World denies that.
But they also usually hasten to say that this is an oversimplification, and I suspect they’re right: In some ways, this pattern is only natural for a weirdly timed special election driven by right-wing partisans in a blue state. Newsom’s team started putting out organizers and ads, and things turned around. Duh.
Ben: Sorry to contribute to the revisionist history. I am not a revisionist by nature.
Gabriel: If on-the-ground reporting is the first draft of history, Slack chats for publication are the first-and-a-half draft.
Ben: Naturally, political observers are trying to figure out whether and how this result will have national implications, particularly for next year’s midterms. Some people seem to be shoehorning in a previously baked take that the recall itself is a bad sign for Democrats; others view the landslide as a warning sign for a Republican Party that has gotten used to rallying around, for lack of a better word, kooks. But is there really much to extrapolate here, or is this a local story that only seems like a national one?
Gabriel: All of the above, of course! It’s not, though, a local story. I think Newsom’s ex-campaign manager Addisu Demissie was right when he said on Twitter last night, “Before anyone starts with the California isn’t America but tonight let me preempt with the fact that 1 in 8 Americans lives here.” Which, yeah, good point, Addisu.
I’m not sure what this portends for the midterms, except that Newsom executed a pretty obvious playbook pretty effectively: If you’re in a fairly Democratic-leaning area and your opponent is willing to paint him/herself as Trump 2.0, you lean into that. Seems obvious, and Newsom did it to great effect.
I’m really struggling with all the takes that this is a warning sign for Democrats. Sorry, but the Democratic governor of California steamrolls a right-wing provocateur and we read it as “Dems in disarray?” Come on. That’s national media at its eye-rolliest.
That said, there are probably a decent number of lessons to be learned from how Californians think about COVID and Newsom’s masking and vaccination policies. This was the first real supposedly competitive state-level race where someone who was in charge of a COVID response faced an up-or-down vote since the pandemic started. And it turns out this mass backlash just … isn’t happening. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of discontent in California — over lockdowns but also over the housing crisis, homelessness, wildfires, and on and on. Just that when it comes to the undisputed most important issue of the day, Newsom won largely by saying, again and again, I’m taking this seriously.
Ben: Right. We should say that this whole recall was really made possible by Newsom’s big unforced error on COVID — dining at the French Laundry in contravention of his pandemic safety measures. But it seems a bit of personal hypocrisy wasn’t the silver bullet Republicans were hoping for. I also think this points to the difficulty in forecasting what this means for next year. Beyond the long time lag, who knows whether the pandemic will finally have receded, or whether it will still be issue No. 1?
Gabriel: Right, yes, absolutely. I’m old enough to remember when the midterms were going to be all about Dr. Seuss, or something. That said, COVID completely changed the way we live and think and consume around the world, so even if the midterm question isn’t “Did Politician X handle lockdown and mask policy the right way?,” it’s hard to conceive of a world where the experience of the past two years isn’t fairly central to voters’ decision-making.
Then again, how many voters in 2014 made their decision based on the Ebola scare? In 2018, how many were terrified by the “migrant caravan”? Which is all a way of saying: We’re still building the fundamental landscape of the midterms, not the final marginal issues.
It can be frustrating, though, to look at this purely through that lens. We can also take more direct lessons from this for governance’s sake. Turns out voters like it when you address the pandemic head-on and don’t when you pretend it’s over. Newsom’s personal hypocrisy hurt him, obviously, but he got past it by making the race about policy and warning that if Elder were to win, California’s COVID policy would start to look like Texas’s or Florida’s, which are hands-off and scary.
Ben: What does it say about the current state of the Republican party that there were all these qualified-on-paper candidates, like former San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer (as well as an international celebrity in Caitlyn Jenner), and voters rallied around a conservative talk-radio host?
Gabriel: Elder’s rise isn’t that shocking to me, after spending some time on the ground in California. He was decently well known in the southern part of the state, got a lot of play on Fox News, and enjoyed throwing Trump fans the kind of red meat they wanted. That’s enough to get ahead of the other Republicans, but clearly not enough to win over any moderates.
The Jenner story, I suspect, will be told soon. It has to be: What happened? She may not have ever been an acceptable candidate to California’s modern GOP, but there was money and buzz behind her Brad Parscale–fueled campaign and then it fizzled so quickly and embarrassingly that, clearly, there’s a bigger behind-the-scenes tale to be told.
Faulconer’s fall, though, is clearly the one that says the most. Here was a guy who was semi-openly preparing for a statewide run as a “sensible, moderate Republican” for years. He had run a huge city, and was decently well known. And then … he decided he had to go Trumpy and promptly lost all credibility. He was probably right that to win over Republicans in California, he had to take that turn, but it completely ended his chances with the moderates among whom he’d built his reputation in the first place. His attempt to turn back to some form of “I have something for everyone!” in the final weeks just came across as limp. Lots of people think he’ll now challenge Newsom in 2022. But why? And which version of Faulconer are we gonna get?
Ben: Could this cause other moderate Republicans around the country to reevaluate whether they need to go full Trump? For many, as it was for Faulconer, it’s sort of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation, electorally speaking.
Gabriel: Can I answer this after J.D. Vance loses his primary by 30?
In a move that sent shockwaves through British Columbia’s political landscape, B.C. United leader Kevin Falcon announced on Wednesday that his party would suspend its campaign for the upcoming provincial election and throw its support behind John Rustad’s resurgent B.C. Conservatives. This unprecedented decision has left political watchers and analysts scrambling to make sense of the ramifications for the province’s political future.
Kevin Falcon, who took the reins of the B.C. Liberals—now rebranded as B.C. United—in February 2022, delivered the stunning news at a press conference that left many in disbelief. The former cabinet minister, known for his confidence and assertiveness, appeared uncharacteristically somber and introspective as he explained the rationale behind his decision.
Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, observed the stark contrast in Falcon’s demeanor. “This is a man who has always exuded confidence, even cockiness, throughout his political career. But today, he seemed on the brink of tears, visibly struggling with the weight of this decision,” Kurl noted. The emotional toll of Falcon’s announcement was evident, underscoring the gravity of the situation both personally and professionally for the B.C. United leader.
The roots of B.C. United’s collapse can be traced back to two key decisions made by Falcon: the expulsion of John Rustad from the party and the controversial rebranding from the B.C. Liberals to B.C. United. Rustad, who was removed from the party in February 2023 for questioning climate change science, quickly capitalized on his dismissal by revitalizing the dormant B.C. Conservative Party. Since then, Rustad has attracted a growing number of former B.C. United MLAs and candidates to his cause, turning the B.C. Conservatives into a formidable political force.
The decision to rebrand the B.C. Liberals as B.C. United, which was meant to signal a fresh start for the party, has been widely criticized as poorly timed and poorly executed. Bill Bennett, a former Liberal cabinet minister, lamented the lack of public understanding of the new brand. “There was no real effort to rebrand and help the public grasp who B.C. United was. The entire process lacked sufficient resources, which ultimately led to its failure,” Bennett said.
Political scientists have been quick to analyze the implications of Falcon’s decision to suspend B.C. United’s campaign. Stewart Prest, a political science lecturer at the University of British Columbia (UBC), expressed shock at the sudden turn of events. “This was a party that, just moments ago, was preparing to compete in this election. To suddenly wave the white flag and step aside in favor of another party is unprecedented. We haven’t seen anything quite like this before,” Prest remarked.
The move has also raised questions about Falcon’s leadership and the future of B.C. United. Gerald Baier, an associate professor of political science at UBC, suggested that Falcon’s decision to expel Rustad may be viewed as the pivotal moment in his leadership. “If Falcon could go back and change one decision, it would likely be the expulsion of Rustad. That move set off a chain reaction that ultimately led to the party’s collapse,” Baier explained.
With B.C. United stepping aside, the B.C. Conservatives are now positioned to become the main opposition to the ruling B.C. NDP in the upcoming election, scheduled for October 19. However, the transition will not be without its challenges. The Conservatives will need to decide which B.C. United candidates to include on their slate, a process that could leave some candidates and voters in a state of uncertainty.
As the political landscape in British Columbia shifts dramatically, the upcoming election promises to be one of the most closely watched and hotly contested in recent memory. The decision by Falcon to back the B.C. Conservatives has not only upended the election but has also reshaped the future of politics in the province. As the dust settles, all eyes will be on John Rustad and his ability to capitalize on this newfound momentum.
In conclusion, Kevin Falcon’s decision to suspend B.C. United’s campaign and endorse the B.C. Conservatives marks a pivotal moment in British Columbia’s political history. The move has raised numerous questions about the future of B.C. United, the leadership of the B.C. Conservatives, and the upcoming election itself. As the province braces for what promises to be a highly volatile election season, one thing is clear: British Columbia’s political landscape will never be the same.
VICTORIA – British Columbia’s auditor general says his office has found no evidence of a conflict of interest in the handling of provincial grants for the zero-emission vehicle sector, after an accusation by a truck maker earlier this year.
Michael Pickup says in a statement the investigation looked into accounting firm MNP’s handling of Advanced Research and Commercialization grant applications, reviewing “a significant amount of information” from the company, the government and all applicants.
Pickup says the results show no evidence MNP wrote grant applications for clients, influenced the evaluation process to benefit clients or used its administering of the program to “recruit” clients for the company’s other services.
In April, the provincial legislature unanimously directed Pickup’s office to examine allegations by electric-hybrid truck maker Edison Motors that MNP was both administering the grants and offering services to help businesses with applications.
The Office of the Auditor General says the allegations from Edison, which is based in Merritt, B.C., suggested MNP “was offering to write grant applications in exchange for a success fee while also deciding who received grant funding.”
MNP said at the time that the allegations were “false and misleading.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 28, 2024.
Certain solar farms will be banned on prime agricultural land in Ontario as the province expands energy production to meet demand in the coming decades, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce said Wednesday.
Ontario is looking to add some 5,000 megawatts of energy to the grid, with Lecce directing the Independent Electricity System Operator to secure “technology agnostic” energy resources. That means the province will use a mix of natural gas, hydroelectric, renewables, nuclear and biomass energy sources, he said.
But the province is making efforts to protect key agricultural areas in the process, the minister said.
Ground-mounted solar panels will be prohibited on prime agricultural farmland, said Lecce, who pledged the province would “never misuse” those lands.
“Our farmers need more energy more than ever,” Lecce said.
“They need access to to affordable energy and so we made a commitment to work with them on a policy that ultimately will respect prime agricultural land.”
Other energy products being considered on prime agricultural land will now require an impact assessment before proceeding.
The province is also giving power to municipalities to decide if they want a particular energy project.
“Long gone are the days where Queen’s Park imposes projects on unwilling communities, undermining those agricultural areas,” Lecce said.
The news is welcome to farmers, said Drew Spoelstra, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
“The new energy procurement framework is a major step forward for Ontario,” he said.
“Reliable and affordable energy is incredibly important to the growth of the Ontario economy, including food production, food processing and the agri-food sector.”
Farmers and Premier Doug Ford’s government have had an up-and-down relationship in recent years in light of the Greenbelt scandal.
The province had said they were going to build 50,000 homes on the protected Greenbelt, which includes prime agricultural land. But several investigations by provincial bodies found the process was flawed as it favoured some developers with ties to the government over others.
Farmers did not like the possible encroachment onto farmland and joined the chorus to denounce the Greenbelt move. Last summer, amid mounting public pressure to reverse course, Ford walked back those Greenbelt plans.
Lecce’s announcement Wednesday comes as the province’s electricity demand is expected to grow by about two per cent each year, although that could be even higher depending on electrification within the broader economy.
The IESO has said the province will need at least 60 per cent more energy by 2050.
Ontario has also recently been adding electricity storage projects, with an eye to about 2,500 megawatts, and the IESO said the province’s emerging battery fleet will pair well with wind and solar, so that the power generated by those methods can be stored and injected into the grid when needed.
Ford cancelled 750 renewable energy contracts shortly after his Progressive Conservatives formed government in 2018, after the former Liberal government faced widespread anger over the long-term contracts with clean power producers at above-market rates.
The province is also moving ahead with nuclear energy expansion, including seeking to refurbish units at the Pickering nuclear plant, build small modular reactors at the Darlington nuclear plant and exploring a new, large-scale plant at Bruce Power.
In 2021, the electricity system was 94 per cent emissions free, but that is now down to 87 per cent as it uses natural gas to meet demand.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 28, 2024.
