Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Couple things... and I have only a minute so forgive me for going quick.
I think it's a wake-up call for the Left. This wasn't some regional-only vote - even Bill Clinton came out against Walker. Now the Left knows that it's not going to be be as much of a cakewalk as they thought.
The most amusing part in the reactions for me is how many in the Left are saying things like "I can't believe that someone who's actions are so much against what the public wants was voted for again. I mean, we had 900,000 signatures." Well these people obviously don't know how the democratic process works. 900k obviously wasn't enough and the public told the state *twice* who they wanted as Governor.
Your last sentence is the only one I'll partially agree with the amount of outrage "they were outspent." From what I've read, something like two-thirds of Scott Walkers funding came from out-of-state. In a post-Citizens United world, it's depressing that the election process in this country is far more a battle of fundraising than it is a battle of "who's most qualified."
You obviously didn't read the exit polling. A significant number of people that said they'd vote for Obama in the presidential election also voted not to recall Walker.
While this result is interesting, I think there are a number of possible reasons for the exit polls to show these results:
- For the same reasons a Republican like Romney was Governor of Mass, there's a major difference in political needs at the state and federal levels.
- Scott Walker is basically doing what he was said he'd do and was elected to do. In WI, these actions have a significant chance of balancing the state budget. Even some democrats realize that kicking the debt can down the road isn't an option.
A major issue (and I agree with it if reports are accurate) is that most of Walker's money came from out of state. People will say that this was an vote needed because of corporatism trying to squash the little guy and corporations, with all their money, were just able to do it again.
I read something by Rachael Maddow today that couldn't be more accurate, "The democrats cannot with without the unions."
She couldn't me more correct. The struggles of the dems and repubs is interesting to me right now... decades ago, Democrats decided that they are going to be the party for the common man and that meant teaming up and pandering to Unions. Unfortunately for the dems, unions have bloated up into being utterly unsustainable.
Unions are going to die with the baby boomers.
Being a Massachusetts resident, I wouldn't make this comparison.
Well, I typed about 10x more than I thought. So much for being quick...
|
"In a post-Citizens United world, it's depressing that the election process in this country is far more a battle of fundraising than it is a battle of "who's most qualified."
To repeat, Obama spent way more money in 2008 than McCain did. Obama's fundraising shattered records. Back then, I didn't hear a peep from liberals about buying elections. Citizens United doesn't favor one party over the other. If Walker had more money, that tells me that more people agreed with him than his opponent. The Citizens United case only favors Republicans, if the GOP has more money to donate than the Dems. If Republuicans had all the money, how did Obama accumulate such an unfathomable war chest in 2008?
Here is al ink from Wikepedia...
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A quote..."Barack Obama's fundraising broke previous records for presidential primary and general campaigns, and has changed expectations for future presidential elections. "
Johnny, I reject the notion that money matters more after Citizens United. Liberals are terrified that when the Koch brothers donate, they are buying influence. Those same liberals have no problems with labor unions donating. I don't buy it. I agree that money plays too big a role, but I reject any notion that the GOP benefits more from donations than the Dems. Obama shattered all fundraising records in 2008. Liberals sure didn't express any concern then...
"You obviously didn't read the exit polling"
I read the exit polling. I just realize that exit polling is notoriously inaccurate. Not everyone wants to talk about what they did as soon as they get out of the booth. We'll see. I do not think Romney will be all that close in WI, but that's interesting to me that a state would twice elect a right-winger, and still support a Mao-ist for President.
"there's a major difference in political needs at the state and federal levels."
Great observation (sincerely, no sarcasm). I'm sure that explains a lot of what will happen in WI...
""The democrats cannot with without the unions."
They can if, and only if, they keep a huge majority of Hispanics. Unions are going away, just as you said. And they are going away for exactly the reasons that conservatives point out, the perks they get are simply not affordable. Those voters can be replaced by, and only by, Hispanics.