California counties with excessive Covid vaccination charges helped Newsom win recall election

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks to media representatives after meeting students from Melrose Leadership Academy while attending school in Oakland, Calif. On Wednesday, September 15, 2021.

Stephen Lam | San Francisco Chronicle | Hearst Newspapers via Getty Images

California Governor Gavin Newsom named his decisive victory Victory for Vaccines and Science in this week’s recall vote. The dates confirm him.

A CNBC analysis of the county-level results – which are tentative as ballots continue to be counted – found a strong association between support for Newsom and counties with high Covid vaccination rates on election day, Sept. 14.

People in counties with high Covid vaccination rates voted overwhelmingly to keep him in office. Conversely, people in counties with lower vaccination rates voted for the governor’s removal.

“‘No’ is not the only thing said tonight. I want to focus on what we as a state said ‘Yes’ to,” Newsom said late Tuesday in Sacramento, thanking his supporters. “We said ‘yes’ to science, we said ‘yes’ to vaccines, we said ‘yes’ to ending this pandemic.

The analysis also shows that people in many of California’s smaller counties are less likely to support Newsom and get vaccinated.

Of the 23 districts with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants, 17 or around three quarters voted with “yes” for the recall. Meanwhile, only 10 of the 35 counties with more than 100,000 residents voted for the recall.

These small counties also tended to have lower vaccination rates. Eighteen of the 23 reported fewer than 50% of residents were fully vaccinated on election day, according to a CNBC analysis of data from the California Department of Health.

Lassen County, for example, has an estimated population of around 30,600 (as of 2019) and a current vaccination rate of nearly 22%. Around 84% of voters voted “yes” to the recall.

Similarly, Modoc County has an estimated population of 8,800 (as of 2019) and a current vaccination rate of 36.3%. 78 percent of voters also supported the recall.

At the other end of the spectrum, Los Angeles County has an estimated population of over 10 million (as of 2019) and a vaccination rate of 59.5%. Newsom’s voters strongly supported Newsom, with 70.8% voting “no”.

The majority of counties classified as rural or predominantly rural supported Newsom and were less likely to be vaccinated, according to the latest 2010 data from the Census Bureau defines rural as a population, dwelling, or territory that is not in an urban area or in areas of 50,000 or more residents.

Ten of the eleven counties classified as rural or predominantly rural in California voted “yes” to the recall. These include Amador County, Calaveras County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Plumas County, Sierra County, Siskiyou County, Tehama County, and Trinity County, according to California’s Secretary of State.

According to CNBC analysis, all 10 of these counties reported vaccination rates below 50% on election day.

President Joe Biden, who ran for Newsom on the eve of Election Day, reiterated the governor’s opinion of his victory.

“This vote is an overwhelming victory for the approach he and I share to defeating the pandemic: strong vaccine requirements, strong steps to safely reopen schools, and strong plans to distribute real drugs – not fake treatments – to help those out who get sick. “Said Biden in a statement on Wednesday.

While the preliminary election results suggest the majority of Californians support the state’s pandemic measures, it was initially Newsom’s response to Covid that threatened its political fate.

Nationwide mask requirements, stay-at-home orders, and a maskless appearance by the governor at a high-end Napa Valley restaurant at the height of the rising Covid cases helped the recall petition gain momentum late last year and close to 1, Made 5 million Californians sign it.

However, Newsom’s handling of the pandemic over the past few months, including its vaccine roll-out and mandates, became one of its strengths in the recall election.

The governor introduced Covid vaccine requirements for government officials and healthcare workers in late July entered into force on August 5th. He also introduced similar vaccination requirements for teachers and other school staff, a first in the nation that entered into force on August 12th.

California Governor Gavin Newsom attends a press conference to launch a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Immunization Center on February 8, 2021 in San Diego, California.

Sandy Huffaker | Swimming pool | via Reuters

In the weeks leading up to the election, Newsom’s campaign criticized conservative talk show host Larry Elder, the Republican front runner, for agreeing to end such vaccine mandates and other pandemic measures.

The governor’s vigorous election campaign also promoted the state’s high vaccination rates in recent months. According to Friday, 59.23% of the state’s population is fully vaccinated Data compiled from Johns Hopkins University.

A September poll published in the run-up to the recall election found that more than 3 in 4 Californians believe the state government is doing “an excellent or good job” distributing Covid vaccines. And about 6 in 10 said they approve of the overall way Newsom has responded to the pandemic, according to the Public Policy Institute of California poll.

“While a small group of cowardly, corrupt scammers in the Republican Party seek to attract attention by undermining trust in science and public health, the vast majority of Americans have not been fooled – they understand that vaccinations save lives “And they” support vaccine mandates with common sense, “Los Angeles-based Democratic adviser Michael Soneff said in an email.

Gavin Newsom recall marketing campaign cash tracker

In summary

Keep track of who’s giving money and where it’s coming from on this dashboard, which is updated daily, in the Gavin Newsom recall campaign.

The forecast for this summer is hot, with a high risk of forest fires and a fever campaign to determine the political fate of Governor Gavin Newsom.

The fight to recall Newsom has already consumed state politics, with the governor has been in campaign mode since March and both sides are already reporting Millions of dollars in the bank. While the recall date has not yet been set, it will be the second big pick in as many years, and a third is on the way in 2022.

For recall supporters, having money and grassroots support will be vital in a state where registered Democrats are two-to-one more Republicans than Republicans. Newsom only added more than $ 5.8 million to its campaign fund in May.

We will follow the money and update this page daily with data from the Foreign Minister. As always, let us know what your questions about funding this wild choice.

How much money did each side raise?

Where does the money come from?

We can only tell this to a certain extent because we don’t know where the small dollar contributions are coming from. However, due to larger contributions that the state classifies as “broken down,” it is clear that the vast majority of the money comes from California.

Who gives the money?

Unlike contributions to candidates, there is no limit to how much donors can give to the recall committees. Here are the top ten contributors on each page.

And we want to hear from you!

methodology

The data is updated daily by the California Secretary of State’s Cal Access Database.

We’ll add broken down and consistent posts to get the grand total from each page. However, we only use itemized posts for analysis by state because post information is not reported for consistent posts.

We ignore contributions between committees that are on the same page of the topic as they are essentially transfers.

To avoid doubling some of the contributions from the Patriot Coalition USA and Rescue California, two pro-recall committees, we ignore non-monetary contributions to the Patriot Coalition. This is because money raised by Rescue California that was earmarked for main committee activities such as collecting signatures must be reported by both committees.

This tracker contains committees formed by candidates specifically for the recall. We currently have the following committees:

FPPC ID Surname
1424018 CALIFORNIA PATRIOT COALITION – RECALL GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM
1434853 RESCUE CALIFORNIA – TO SUPPORT THE RECALL OF GAVIN NEWSOM
1435892 CAREGIVERS AND CALIFORNIANS UNITED AGAINST THE RECALL OF GOVERNOR NEWSOM, SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTH WORKERS
1436851 STOP GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S REPUBLICAN RECALL
1437098 RECALL NEWSOM! REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION ACTION
1437408 STOP THE STEAL CALIFORNIA and decline GAVIN NEWSOM’s recall
1437864 CLEAN CALIFORNIA, KEVIN FAULCONER’S BALLOT MEASURING COMMITTEE TO RECALL GAVIN NEWSOM

The committees registered with the California FPPC that we believe may be involved in the recall.

Is Gov. Newsom doing the precise factor with the state’s surplus cash?

Governor Gavin Newsom said this week that he intends to use part of the project State budget surplus of $ 75.7 billion to send stimulus checks to Californians.

The $ 600 checks are for those earning less than $ 75,000 a year. It would cost about $ 8.1 billion. Newsom has said direct checks to Californians will be one way are recovering from the pandemic. He also suggested a $ 5 billion rental subsidy.

Under a spending cap approved by state voters in 1979, Newsom is required to return taxpayers money when there is a budget surplus. However, the governor’s plan goes beyond what is necessary, restricts controls to working-class and middle-class residents, and the money would be returned before it is needed.

Q: Is Governor Newsom doing the right thing with the excess cash?

Reginald Jones, Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation

JA: It’s difficult to criticize the governor’s plan for him to roar back after the pandemic. In addition to the economic relief of low-income and middle-class families, the immediate needs of environmental, infrastructure and social programs are also taken into account. The governor’s proposal, while a good one, does not use the surplus as a catalyst to address longer-term state problems. The real estate crisis and the associated problems with the cost of living, which are holding back the growth of the middle class, threaten problems. The resources must be geared towards sustainable solutions.

Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University

NO: California’s economy is already ready to recover strongly without additional stimulus. Allowing the state’s vital entertainment, leisure, and hospitality industries to open up fully should spark a surge in pent-up demand. The recent distribution of $ 1,400 checks by the federal government has helped total income increase nearly 30 percent from its pre-pandemic peak. Much of this money is still in bank accounts. The state should take the opportunity to strengthen its rainy day fund and meet its long-term pension obligations.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Not really a discount, but just another giveaway for spending. After California imposes some of the strictest COVID-related restrictions and recent reopenings in the country, distributing $ 600 to households won’t do much. The state does not work with budget surpluses when the massive long-term liabilities tighten. As long as California has minimum debt payments and dubious projections of future returns on revenue, annual expenses will not cover projected pension obligations for unfunded government employees and deferred maintenance of highway infrastructure.

Phil Blair, manpower

NO: While popular with voters (and threatened with a recall election), the money should better be spent on other issues California is facing. The governor must obey the law and return excess funds in accordance with the law. However, when combined with the excessive federal grants on offer, this is more cash than other monies. I would support childcare, any type of vocational training or internship program, or even infrastructure funding. The economy is accelerating rapidly and will grow even faster if people returned to work instead of being encouraged to stay home with more grants.

Gary London, Moeder advisor in London

NO: A budget surplus partly indicates over-taxation. But we need to protect ourselves from stunts that appear to be triggered by this goofy recall movement and strive to find more thoughtful ways to get and spend money. Why not call it the “Robinhood Tax Giveaway”? I would like some clarity on a long-term fiscal equalization plan that cuts taxes while ensuring that the focus remains on education reform, infrastructure spending, water improvements and fire safety.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

Do not attend this week.

Bob Rauch, RA Rauch & Associates

NO: Governor Newsom still has to return the money according to our constitution. He claims he will send $ 600 to anyone with incomes up to $ 75,000 per year and an additional $ 500 to taxpayers with dependents. He’s essentially sending the money to voters who are helping him save his job. It should only go to those who have been financially affected by Covid-19, not those who are middle class, without any change in their financial position.

Austin Neudecker, web growth

YES: Direct payments to those most likely to need the money (and to spend it immediately) are widely seen as a great way to boost the economy. The next logical step would be to make these payments automatically based on economic indicators. As for the rest of the surplus, I would like California to invest more in our future: early education, post-school programs, professional training, and weather protection.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: There are times when the economy needs more fiscal stimulus, but this is not one of them. Federal spending and deficits have been massive, and monetary policy is keeping the accelerator down. I think inflation and supply shortages will turn out to be the big economic story for 2021. I want to encourage the governor to focus on stopping the exodus of high-paying jobs from California.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

Do not attend this week.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: While I’m not a supporter of the recall, I think the “recall discount” is part of the story. Any stimulus checks that may be sent to 75 percent of adult residents are not targeted enough to help people with real needs. Either we should better target the funds or use them for longer-term projects with lasting economic effects, infrastructure and improvements in the education system and reserve them for the next downturn.

Jamie Moraga, IntelliSolutions

NO: California is legally required to return part of its estimated $ 76 billion surplus to taxpayers. Recently, this amount has been questioned as it contains reserves and constitutionally required expenses. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the surplus is expected to be around $ 38 billion. The governor’s spin of the surplus and the timing of the stimulus payments to Californians appear to be politically motivated.

David Ely, San Diego State University

YES: How to spend tax revenue is best left to California residents. The proposed distribution of stimulus tests contributes to this. In addition, the state is obliged to reimburse part of the tax surplus payments to the taxpayers. Tenants who have lost their jobs due to the pandemic have benefited from eviction moratoriums. However, many will not be able to repay the rental obligations accumulated during the pandemic without assistance.

Ray Major, SANDAG

NO: The most effective way to recover from the pandemic is to lift all restrictions on businesses. Giving billions of dollars to millions of people regardless of their real needs is not the best use of government funds. The money should be used to support those who are directly affected. A shotgun approach does not result in a quick recovery but in excessive spending, which leads to inflation when discretionary spending increases.

Do you have an idea for an EconoMeter question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com.

Follow me on Twitter: @PhillipMolnar