Scott Walker win in WI?

[Jim in CT]

One election down, one to go?

So what do y'all think?

In my opinion, this is an unmitigated disaster for liberals. Remember, this was their fight, they picked this fight, not the conservatives. Yet they got outspent, outworked, and clobbered in the end.

Does this put WI in play in November? Somehow I don't think so. Yet I cannot imagine how anyone who voted for Scott Walker yesterday would ever, in a million years, vote for Obama.

The lunatics at MSNBC, when not getting their shock treatments, are saying that the election was bought because conservatives spent more money. The question is, why is that? If the democrats and the unions asked for this fight, and all those anarchists "occupied" the capital, why did the GOP raise so much more money?

On a less-publicized note, Can Diego and San Jose (big cities in liberal CA) OVERWHELMINGLY voted to put big limits on union perks.

Scott Walker, like Obama, inherited a mess. Obama tried liberal solutions, Walker tried conservative solutions. Walker has cut unemployment by a full percentage point, and has drastically reduced a multi-billion dollar deficit. Anyone here care anything about facts?

Walker had the nerve to ask union members to pay 12% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, the average employee pays 30%.

How does anyone side with the unions, unless they are in a union? These are insane, antiquated benefits that are bankrupting almost every city and state in the nation.

The tide is turning.

And it's a Mike Tyson-like uppercut to the jaw of Obama. Obama won WI in 2008. In 2010, those people elected Walker, a hard-core conservative. Last night, even more people voted for Walker than in 2010.

[Raider Ronnie]

Scott Walker for vice president !

[spence]

You should ask how often Gov recalls work, how much special interest money was at play and what the current poll numbers are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You should ask how often Gov recalls work, how much special interest money was at play and what the current poll numbers are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll have to ask a question you often ask of others...Did you even read Jim's post?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should ask how often Gov recalls work, how much special interest money was at play and what the current poll numbers are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you are literally making it up as you go along...

"You should ask how often Gov recalls work"

OK, Spence, let's ask that question. How often do governor recalls work? Anyone? Answer: before Tuesday night, they worked every single time. Walker was the first governor to ever survive a recall. Before Tuesday night, recalls worked 100% of the time. Not 99% of the time. !00% of the time. Spence, how do you like them apples?

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ele...sin?source=rss


"how much special interest money was at play"

Outside unions donated big to oust Walker. Liberal special interests had just as much of a right to donate to this cause as conservative special interests. They chose not to, even though it was they who picked this fight. Conclusion: public sentiment is turning against big labor. That conslusion is validated by the spectacular results in San Diego and San Jose...

Liberals are whining that Walker "bought" the election. Last time I checked, Obama drastically outspent McCain in 2008. Spence, were you whining then, that Obama was buying the election? I didn't think so...

"what the current poll numbers are"

The current polling numbers are lousy for Obama. Romney just became the nominee, most folks don't know anything about him yet, and he's in a dead heat with Obama. 5 months away from the election, it would be bad for an incumbent if Romney was within 10 points. That it's a dead heat, is HUGE trouble for the incumbent.

Listen to the bell Spence, it tolls for thee. Spin it any way you want...

[Fly Rod]

You should ask how often Gov recalls work:
Jim answered that for U.

how much special interest money:
Unions spent as much if not more... they were paying people on the streets to protest....bused union people in to demostrate.

what the current poll numbers are:
Some counties had 70-80% turn out.

Romney will win in November..

[JohnnyD]

Couple things... and I have only a minute so forgive me for going quick.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

One election down, one to go?

So what do y'all think?

In my opinion, this is an unmitigated disaster for liberals. Remember, this was their fight, they picked this fight, not the conservatives. Yet they got outspent, outworked, and clobbered in the end.

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."

Does this put WI in play in November? Somehow I don't think so. Yet I cannot imagine how anyone who voted for Scott Walker yesterday would ever, in a million years, vote for Obama.

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.

The lunatics at MSNBC, when not getting their shock treatments, are saying that the election was bought because conservatives spent more money. The question is, why is that? If the democrats and the unions asked for this fight, and all those anarchists "occupied" the capital, why did the GOP raise so much more money?

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.

Scott Walker, like Obama, inherited a mess. Obama tried liberal solutions, Walker tried conservative solutions. Walker has cut unemployment by a full percentage point, and has drastically reduced a multi-billion dollar deficit. Anyone here care anything about facts?

Walker had the nerve to ask union members to pay 12% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, the average employee pays 30%.

How does anyone side with the unions, unless they are in a union? These are insane, antiquated benefits that are bankrupting almost every city and state in the nation.

The tide is turning.

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.

And it's a Mike Tyson-like uppercut to the jaw of Obama. Obama won WI in 2008. In 2010, those people elected Walker, a hard-core conservative. Last night, even more people voted for Walker than in 2010.

Being a Massachusetts resident, I wouldn't make this comparison.

Well, I typed about 10x more than I thought. So much for being quick...

[Jim in CT]

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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 Obama 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...

I'm not contesting that the playing field isn't somewhat level. And most of my comments regarding how money played a roll in WI were more "devil's advocate" type statements.

For clarity's sake, I shouldn't have conflated my opinions on CU with WI. Money doesn't matter more in the Dems vs. Repubs situation. In my opinion, a post-CU world has more effect on the actual candidates we, as citizens, get and their motivations rather than on how those candidates compete with each other.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not contesting that the playing field isn't somewhat level. And most of my comments regarding how money played a roll in WI were more "devil's advocate" type statements.

For clarity's sake, I shouldn't have conflated my opinions on CU with WI. Money doesn't matter more in the Dems vs. Repubs situation. In my opinion, a post-CU world has more effect on the actual candidates we, as citizens, get and their motivations rather than on how those candidates compete with each other.

I'm with you 100% that it's counter-productive, if not dangerous, that money plays such a big role. I just suspect that liberals are playing that card this week, simply because they didn't get what they want this time. And when liberals don't get what they want, they throw a hissy fit just like my kids. I know you're not doing that, I'm saying everyone at MSNBC is doing that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'll have to ask a question you often ask of others...Did you even read Jim's post?

Yes.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm with you 100% that it's counter-productive, if not dangerous, that money plays such a big role. I just suspect that liberals are playing that card this week, simply because they didn't get what they want this time.

The Dems must of released their "they were outspent excuse" talking points early,
as I heard one pundit saying that when 70% of the votes were in and the hand
writing was on the wall.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The Dems must of released their "they were outspent excuse" talking points early,
as I heard one pundit saying that when 70% of the votes were in and the hand
writing was on the wall.

And there's the difference between Republicans and Democrats (at a high level). In 2008, the GOP just got clobbered, absolutely clobbered. What did they do? They re-tooled their message, spred that message with the Tea Party, and they have been a roll ever since.

When the Democrats get clobbered, they charge racism, make fantasy claims of influence-peddling from outside money, and they throw rocks, camp (and crap) outside in public parks, engage in anarchy and mayhem, and scream "WAAH!"

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The Dems must of released their "they were outspent excuse" talking points early,
as I heard one pundit saying that when 70% of the votes were in and the hand
writing was on the wall.

Hmmm the 20 mil spent by the unions in a losing effort was not included in the calculations

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Hmmm the 20 mil spent by the unions in a losing effort was not included in the calculations

But when unions give $$ to Democrats, that's just free speech. When conservative groups give $$ to Republicans, that's corrupt. So it's OK to give $, to campaigns, as long as it goes to Democrats...

[Fishpart]

What about the free pitch the Dems get in the George Soros owned media?