Wisconsin recall election.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

What are your thoughts?


I think that the people of Wisconsin should be proud that they exercised their rights to change leadership according to their Constitution. Even though I dislike the outcome, whenever we exercise our rights we end up winning. Hopefully Walker sees this as a victory with a caveat: he must start working for all of Wisconsin and not just the wealthy few who fund him from out of state.


He won't. He's a scumbag. I see criminal indictments in his future.


I try to be an optimist. I know it's a fool's errand but I try.


@ Bob. Its not a fools errand. Your a person who is not twisted and warped. I'm proud your an American!
I wish I could say the same for others on these boards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Elections: still for sale by the highest bidder


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Elections: still for sale by the highest bidder

Pretty much yeah. Scotty spent 8 times Barrett. And got 90ish percent of the swing vote. Shocker. Doesn't hurt that he lied through histeeth without the media calling him on it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Elections: still for sale by the highest bidder

Grapes: still sour for the losing side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Elections: still for sale by the highest bidder
Grapes: still sour for the losing side.

Scott Walker: douchier than Massengill.

Seriously though. This election was bought and paid for, overwhelmingly by out of state interests. And a weird campaign financing exemption: a removal of the single donor cap for a candidates defending against a recall. It let the millionaires and billionaires come out of the woodwork and slap down half a mil each. "Open for business" indeed. Back room dealings where the ultra-rich can buy special privileges.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Democrats did gain control in the WI state Senate which should limit the further damage Walker can cause.


thejeff wrote:

Democrats did gain control in the WI state Senate which should limit the further damage Walker can cause.

Here's the rub. Lehman won by a very narrow margin. If the margin is less than 0.5% of the total votes cast, either side can force a recount at taxpayer's expense. It's over that threshold, which means if his opponent wants a recount they'll have to pay for it out of their pocket. Well, guess who has deep pockets. Bet you dollars to doughnuts there will be a recount, possibly in which the republicans eke out an 11th hour victory by JUST enough votes.

Seriously. I live this every day. It's like it's scripted.

But I'll take whatever victories I can on this dark day, however fleeting. Now we have the flock of republicans, invigorated by this new influx of money into a state previously ignored by the national media, vying for Herb Kohl's senate seat in the fall. Including former governor Toxic Tommy Thompson.


So, more than a million people signed Walker recall petitions.
What happened then?
Did they not vote afterwards?
Were they duped by the robocalls they received, telling them that their signatures counted as voting?
Was the whole thing rigged?

Something smells fishy, but whether it's voter apathy when crunch time arrives or something else... It'll be interesting to find out.


Like I said at the time this whole recall shiznit started, they should have had a general strike.


GentleGiant wrote:

So, more than a million people signed Walker recall petitions.

What happened then?
Did they not vote afterwards?
Were they duped by the robocalls they received, telling them that their signatures counted as voting?
Was the whole thing rigged?

Something smells fishy, but whether it's voter apathy when crunch time arrives or something else... It'll be interesting to find out.

Well, more than a million voted for Barrett.

It may just be that pretty much everyone opposed to Walker signed the petitions.

GOP turnout was high. The uncommitted broke for the incumbent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Seriously. I live this every day. It's like it's scripted.

Werd.

Citizens United is having the intended effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The spending cap removal for the incumbent was probably the most offensive part of the process. It definitely results in a skewed election and is, in my opinion, a gross violation of democratic principles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
The spending cap removal for the incumbent was probably the most offensive part of the process. It definitely results in a skewed election and is, in my opinion, a gross violation of democratic principles.

I agree. It's very peculiar. Nonetheless, it wouldn't have been an issue were it not for Citizens United and its fallout. I really hope the SCOTUS chooses to re-examine their decision so we can get this country back on track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Elections: still for sale by the highest bidder
Grapes: still sour for the losing side.

Understandably so. Walker outspent his opponent by a margin of seven to one. Lesson: He with the most bucks wins.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

The people of Wisconsin have spoken.


meatrace wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Democrats did gain control in the WI state Senate which should limit the further damage Walker can cause.

Here's the rub. Lehman won by a very narrow margin. If the margin is less than 0.5% of the total votes cast, either side can force a recount at taxpayer's expense. It's over that threshold, which means if his opponent wants a recount they'll have to pay for it out of their pocket.

Another thing largely ignored is that the legislative body won't convene again until after the November elections so until the result of that election, it doesn't really matter who has more in the Senate

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Elections: still for sale by the highest bidder
Grapes: still sour for the losing side.
Understandably so. Walker outspent his opponent by a margin of seven to one. Lesson: He with the most bucks wins.

Correlation =/= Causation

I detest Walker as much as the next liberal, but the outcry I am seeing from the election is hard for me to stomach. Sometimes your candidate of choice loses. You move on and try to promote your message so that the next time around people are better inclined to support your candidates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Celestial Healer wrote:


Correlation =/= Causation

Seriously? It's just a coincidence that the people who spend massively more money on advertising (hint: that's the "getting your message out" you talk about in your post) win? Get your head out of the sand.

I guarantee you don't detest Walker as much as I do, you don't live here. You don't have to live with this crap. Guarantee within 3 months we'll be a right to work state. Right to Work Wisconsin was making robocalls for Walker, and when the question about right to work was put to him in the debates he ducked, dodged, dove and dodged the question, refusing the answer. Because of the legislation passed, two of my friends are out of a job (teachers) and a third will likely have his pay cut by about 20%. I could go on.

The amount of political ad time that the Walker campaign was able to leverage was staggering. I have still only ever seen a Barrett commercial on Hulu, and only Walker ads on broadcast television. Even on the LIBERAL TALK RADIO station in Madison, 100% of the ad time was bought by the Walker campaign.

8 to 1. 31 million to 4 million.

I'm sorry, but saying that the amount of money spent on a campaign has no effect on the outcome is pure ignorance.


Yeah, I knew this diehard liberal who was all abortion rights, same-sex marriage should be legal, etc. And then this conservative spent a bunch of money on commercials and now that liberal is a converted conservative.

money = brainwashing

Them's the facts kids, there is no arguing against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting, but the polls have shown that Walker was going to win for weeks.
Are other people in WI just not as into what's going on politicly, that they are easily swayed by a tv commercial?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Interesting, but the polls have shown that Walker was going to win for weeks.

Are other people in WI just not as into what's going on politicly, that they are easily swayed by a tv commercial?

Of course not. It's well known that piles of money spent on advertising have little to no effect on people. That's why nobody really bothers with it in politics or in the business world for that matter.


Ok, I get it sore subject.
I agree that advertising has an effect on people, that's why they do it.
But most people, when they feel strongly about something or have conviction about it, aren't likely to agree with commercials that are opposite to that point of view. In fact, it probably pisses them off even more to see it so often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Interesting, but the polls have shown that Walker was going to win for weeks.

Are other people in WI just not as into what's going on politicly, that they are easily swayed by a tv commercial?

The polls have shown a statistical dead heat. Meaning within the margin of error.

Of Democratic voters, 96% said they were voting for Barrett.
Of Republican voters, 96% said they were voting for Walker.
That leaves about 8% of the voters. Since Wisconsin has 4.7 million people, that means about 375k undecideds. Assuming that we had high voter turnout, meaning about 50% let's say 55%, that means that about 206k votes will swing the election.

no, pres_man, we're not talking about brainwashing. We're talking about swaying the undecideds, which is what happened. Lo and behold, Walker won by 175k votes.

Come on. This is a gaming website and I'm sure you are all at least fairly good at math, statistics, and strategy. 96% of the population were entrenched on one side or the other. They can't or won't be swayed. The strategy is to either motivate more of your side to vote, or convince the fence-sitters to fall on your side. Both of those things take $$$.

The Barrett campaign essentially had less than a month and 4 million to spend. Remember Barrett was only a primary candidate until the primary a month ago, and he had vehemently denied he was going to run again until about a month before that! Walker has had a year and 4 months, since the protests last January and February and 31 million, including the previously stated campaign financing exemption for recall incumbents.

So to answer you, kryzbyn, it is ironically the politically unaware that decided the election. The people who were able to be swayed are either ideological clay or massively underinformed.

Personally I don't like Barrett, I wanted Kathleen Falk as the Democratic candidate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Ok, I get it sore subject.

I agree that advertising has an effect on people, that's why they do it.
But most people, when they feel strongly about something or have conviction about it, aren't likely to agree with commercials that are opposite to that point of view. In fact, it probably pisses them off even more to see it so often.

I kind of already addressed this, but you're right. There is, however, that margin of undecideds. When the people for and against a candidate are virtually tied for numbers, being able to sway those undecideds WINS YOU THE CAMPAIGN. Period. Or making the television awash in inflammatory (and questionably true) negative ads targeting your opponent to motivate those that were vaguely pro-walker but weren't passionate about it. It's the only thing that will short of voter fraud and tampering. And you do THAT with piles of cash.

And in this particular instance, on such a politically divisive issue/candidate, people mostly made up their minds long long ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:


Correlation =/= Causation

Seriously? It's just a coincidence that the people who spend massively more money on advertising (hint: that's the "getting your message out" you talk about in your post) win? Get your head out of the sand.

I guarantee you don't detest Walker as much as I do, you don't live here. You don't have to live with this crap. Guarantee within 3 months we'll be a right to work state. Right to Work Wisconsin was making robocalls for Walker, and when the question about right to work was put to him in the debates he ducked, dodged, dove and dodged the question, refusing the answer. Because of the legislation passed, two of my friends are out of a job (teachers) and a third will likely have his pay cut by about 20%. I could go on.

The amount of political ad time that the Walker campaign was able to leverage was staggering. I have still only ever seen a Barrett commercial on Hulu, and only Walker ads on broadcast television. Even on the LIBERAL TALK RADIO station in Madison, 100% of the ad time was bought by the Walker campaign.

8 to 1. 31 million to 4 million.

I'm sorry, but saying that the amount of money spent on a campaign has no effect on the outcome is pure ignorance.

I would like to see how much was spent compared to the Dems during the gubernatorial race.

I'm happy with the outcome in WI!


Dunno if you heard about the senate primary in NE with Deb Fischer, but her opponents spent millions slinging mud at each other, but she won. No one saw that coming at all.
In this case, I'd say the spending was a hindrance for Bruning and Stenburg.

Then again, a recall election can get alot more heated and nasty than a Republican primary. May not be comperable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


I would like to see how much was spent compared to the Dems during the gubernatorial race.

Nationally, the Repubs outspend the Dems around 5:1.

Citizens United was concocted by wealthy conservatives; the same folks who decided that buying the system worked better than fighting it.


Aretas wrote:


I would like to see how much was spent compared to the Dems during the gubernatorial race.

I'm happy with the outcome in WI!

You mean in the 2010 race? I'm unsure, though I'm sure they were closer figures. Barrett just isn't a very good candidate.

And it's great that you're happy, but it means bad things for anyone in WI making less than about 100k and who owns a home.


Following that logic, who bought Obama's election?

EDIT: This sounds a lot more combative than intended. I like to think that McCain was just that big of a jackass that the nation really had no choice...


Kryzbyn wrote:
Following that logic, who bought Obama's election?

Doesn't matter. CI changed everything.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Following that logic, who bought Obama's election?

Yes, it's quite possibly that Obama won in 2008 by doing the 2 things I enumerated: GOTV for Dems and swaying the independents/undecided. And it's possible that Obama spent more money. If that's the case (I'm too lazy to check) we can find out who actually donated.

Thing is, with Citizens United? We don't get to know.

Also I think McCain had a skunk* around his neck named Sara Palin.

skunk:
Paraphrasing from author Robert Anton Wilson: In the old west when they caught someone of a crime worth punishing but not worth hanging someone over, they'd tie him up, put him on a horse, and tie a skunk around his neck.

Republican ad campaigns in the years since Reagan seem to be some variation of "what skunk?"


Just...wow.


I think Democrats should get slapped more often.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think Democrats should get slapped more often.

They don't act like Democrats anymore.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wisconsin's deficit and unemployment rate have been reduced. It's voters must think Walker is doing a great job.


Martin that may not be true (it may be as well). It may mean other things as well:

1) Barrett would not have done a good job
2) The robocalls telling people their vote had already counted worked
3) Telling people they can't sign up to vote on election day had an impact
4) Walker defended his position better
5) That the electronic voting is easily rigged
6) Any combination of the above plus others

Maybe the majority does think he's doing a great job. We can't determine that from seeing who won an election though.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Martin that may not be true (it may be as well). It may mean other things as well:

1) Barrett would not have done a good job
2) The robocalls telling people their vote had already counted worked
3) Telling people they can't sign up to vote on election day had an impact
4) Walker defended his position better
5) That the electronic voting is easily rigged
6) Any combination of the above plus others

Maybe the majority does think he's doing a great job. We can't determine that from seeing who won an election though.

There were also reports of people who were just opposed to the idea of a recall for anything short of actual crimes. Some may have voted for him because they thought he deserved a full term even if they didn't like his policies.


thejeff wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Martin that may not be true (it may be as well). It may mean other things as well:

1) Barrett would not have done a good job
2) The robocalls telling people their vote had already counted worked
3) Telling people they can't sign up to vote on election day had an impact
4) Walker defended his position better
5) That the electronic voting is easily rigged
6) Any combination of the above plus others

Maybe the majority does think he's doing a great job. We can't determine that from seeing who won an election though.

There were also reports of people who were just opposed to the idea of a recall for anything short of actual crimes. Some may have voted for him because they thought he deserved a full term even if they didn't like his policies.

That happened in Omaha last year for a mayoral recall.


I'm not from WI, and while I vehemently oppose Walker, the recall was a bad idea.

Nationally, the Republican party is a little more focused right now. They've been running primaries and beating each other up very recently. With their primaries essentially just over, they were able to lend support to this election in a very big way.

That support helped organize a grass roots system that helped build really high voter turn out, something Republicans don't normally benefit from. As much as I want them to stick around, unions have been one of the best organizational tools for democrats for many years and they are in decline, this very much highlighted that.

Wisconsin is leaning towards Obama still, but with a Walker victory and this high voter turn out, they have a chance to keep those people engaged. If they do, the chances of the state going for Romney is much higher. Obama needs Wisconsin to win in November.

The recall was basically a practice run for the republicans and they got it right. They're still behind in the polls for president, but if they do manage to turn it around in WI, this is going to be the moment that we can point to in hindsight and say "that's what went wrong".


Aretas wrote:

What are your thoughts?

November's gonna rock.

THAT IS ALL!!!

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am enjoying the lamentations of the left.

This is what democracy looks like.

Oh, and as to the 2008 election, I can't find anywhere when Meatrace condemed Obama abandoning public financing and outspending McCain 4 to one. Sour grapes indeed.

And yes, Citizens United was an effect. What part of "Congress shall pass no law" do people not understand. The Unions (spent close to 31m on this recall thing) just aren't used to people being able to spend as much as them.


Matthew Morris wrote:

I am enjoying the lamentations of the left.

This is what democracy looks like.

Oh, and as to the 2008 election, I can't find anywhere when Meatrace condemed Obama abandoning public financing and outspending McCain 4 to one. Sour grapes indeed.

And yes, Citizens United was an effect. What part of "Congress shall pass no law" do people not understand. The Unions (spent close to 31m on this recall thing) just aren't used to people being able to spend as much as them.

If Obama does it, it's okay. Don't you get it? I mean, Syria's got WMD's.


This doesn't need to turn into a snarkfest.


Matthew Morris wrote:

I am enjoying the lamentations of the left.

This is what democracy looks like.

Oh, and as to the 2008 election, I can't find anywhere when Meatrace condemed Obama abandoning public financing and outspending McCain 4 to one. Sour grapes indeed.

And yes, Citizens United was an effect. What part of "Congress shall pass no law" do people not understand. The Unions (spent close to 31m on this recall thing) just aren't used to people being able to spend as much as them.

That's 31 million - not all union spending - on the Democratic side, for the whole recall process: The petition drives, the representatives last year, senators and Walker this year. Walker spent more than that on this election alone.

And they got several reps and senators out. Took control of the state senate.

And unions have been outspent massively for decades, despite the fear-mongering on the right. Fundraising for both parties has been dominated by rich donors. Union money has been minor in comparison. Union support still counts because union members volunteer. They do the basic groundwork of campaigns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
This is what democracy looks like.

No. Not at all. The term is plutocracy.

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Wisconsin recall election. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.