• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

Conservative said:
Millions of dollars were spent to create the recall and what do you have to show for those results? The win was bigger last night than the original election. People will always vote their pocket books and that is what matters. Walker's results show great improvement in the state and that is what led to the overwhelming results last night.
Click to expand...

But, you didn't answer my question. Why spend all that money if money spent doesn't correlate to votes received?
 
Risky Thicket said:
X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?
Click to expand...

Nah... money doesn't matter in elections:


Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million -- that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes -- 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.​


Now to hear garbage spewed about how this election is a bellweather for November's elections. lol
 
I see, so only if Barrett had won, would that have actually been the correct result and the will of the Wisconsin voter. LOL

Sour grapes do indeed make good whine. :D
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
I see, so only if Barrett had won, would that have actually been the will of the Wisconsin voter. LOL

Sour grapes do indeed make good whine. :D
Click to expand...


meh... the only thing uglier than a sore loser is a sore winner.
 
poweRob said:
meh... the only thing uglier than a sore loser is a sore winner.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure if the election had gone the other way, you would have showed nothing but sympathy for Walker and his supporters. :D
 
Risky Thicket said:
Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.
Click to expand...
I think both sides received out of state funding, but Walker obviously received more. Regardless, I agree with you that out of state funding for a state election is wrong. It should not be allowed anymore than out-of-country funding should be for national elections.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I think both sides received out of state funding, but Walker obviously received more. Regardless, I agree with you that out of state funding for a state election is wrong. It should not be allowed anymore than out-of-country funding should be for national elections.
Click to expand...

It should be. Except for Presidential races, which are basically 51 different state elections (counting DC). Maybe Congress because of the national import of what they do.
 
poweRob said:
Nah... money doesn't matter in elections:


Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million -- that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes -- 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.​


Now to hear garbage spewed about how this election is a bellweather for November's elections. lol
Click to expand...

The total spending on both sides was about equal, when you add in outside groups. Both sides had the oppportunity for their message to get out. Voters just picked the message they liked best.
 
Conservative said:
Wonder what liberals are going to say using the money argument in supporting Obama this fall. His goal of raising a billion dollars is quite telling. Is Obama trying to buy the election like liberals claim Walker did in Wisconsin?
Click to expand...

Out-of-State Claims also Out-of-Whack

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel uses a similarly distorted review of spending from the past year. Its May 20 article, "Barrett, Walker have one thing in common: Out-of-state donors," sets up a false equivalency by suggesting that both Walker and Barrett are benefiting equally from out-of-state assistance.

The article buries the key facts about what the title suggests the candidates have in common -- how much money each have received from out-of-state. It obscures the fact that donors outside Wisconsin gave Walker two-thirds of the $13 million he has raised since January 1 (and 57 percent of the $25 million raised since last year), versus Barrett receiving only 12 percent from out-of-state. Overall, Walker has raised 120 times as much money from outside the state as his opponent -- approximately $14.4 million for Walker versus only $120,000 for Barrett. That disparity can buy a lot of TV ad time.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Dan Bice, whose investigative reports are usually reliable, in this story references the PACs We Are Wisconsin and Wisconsin for Falk as proof of out-of-staters helping Democrats, because those groups have received significant funding from national unions. Although the article and title imply that spending by these groups helped Barrett, both groups actually supported Falk in the primary.
Click to expand...
- Source: Center for Media and Democracy


Here's the truth, if you want it. Read the entire article, if you want to be informed.
 
poweRob said:
Nah... money doesn't matter in elections:


Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million -- that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes -- 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.​


Now to hear garbage spewed about how this election is a bellweather for November's elections. lol
Click to expand...

Bingo! And because of Citizens United, much loved by conservatives, we have no idea where most of Walker's big money came from.
 
haymarket said:
I do not argue with some of your points. But you are missing others.

Targets are chosen for many reasons - one being the opportunity and accessibility they present. If one is not available, there are others.

As to paying a price, of course, that is part of the game is it not? The suicide bombers have told us loud and clear that a very small number of people willing to pay that price can do a great deal of damage despite their obvious technological and formal training shortcomings compared to the dominant culture they target. 911 is but one example. I believe the people of New York City do not need to be reminded of that sad reality.
Click to expand...




A bit of advice, if I were you I wouldn't even be post on this subject.

This is the World Wide Web.
 
poweRob said:
Nah... money doesn't matter in elections:


Scott Walker Spent 88% of the Money to Get 53% of the Vote

Walker's Republican campaign outspent Barrett's Democratic campaign by $30.5 million to $4 million -- that's a 7.5 to 1 advantage. Another way of saying this is that of the $34.5 million spent on their campaigns, Walker spend 88% of the money.

Walker beat Barrett by 1,316,989 votes to 1,145,190 votes -- 53% to 46% (with 1% going to an independent candidate).

Here's another way of saying that: Walker spent $23 for each vote he received, while Barrett spent only $3.47 per vote.​


Now to hear garbage spewed about how this election is a bellweather for November's elections. lol
Click to expand...

LOL, yep, results don't matter and people never vote their own pocketbooks? Walker results speak for themselves and he was rewarded for those results.
 
You all can talk about how much this spending makes a difference but how much does the DNC spend on getting out their message ( Im still not voting for them)

You can get the message out but it's still up to the people whether they like the message and it changes their mind.

It's not as If they are going around saying "here is $1000 vote for me"
 
Last edited:
buck said:
The total spending on both sides was about equal, when you add in outside groups. Both sides had the oppportunity for their message to get out. Voters just picked the message they liked best.
Click to expand...

Data and source for your statement, please. Thanks in advance.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Bingo! And because of Citizens United, much loved by conservatives, we have no idea where most of Walker's big money came from.
Click to expand...

Keep spinning those election results and remain in denial. Walker won in a landslide, more than his original number and after having millions spent and a lot of civil unrest to get another election. Well, Wisconsin had that election and lost. Not a word about the millions spent to get the recall so all you can do is claim that Walker bought the election regardless of the exit poll results.
 
Paratrooper said:
You all can talk about how much this spending makes a difference but how much does the DNC spend on getting out their message ( Im still not voting for them)

You can get the message out but it's still up to the people whether they like the message and it changes their mind.

It's not as If they are going around saying "here is $1000 vote for me"
Click to expand...

So you are saying there is no correlation between campaign spending and votes received?
 
Risky Thicket said:
X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?
Click to expand...
Money certainly means a lot, but here's the thing. In big elections like this, certain people are going to deny anything that doesn't make it seem like the voters wholly agree with their side. Some on the left will dismiss any notion that Wisconsin voters legitimately agree with Scott Walker. Some on the right will dismiss any notion that Wisconsin voters were swayed more by one-sided ads with great funds behind them than by legitimate agreement with Walker.

I think money was a huge factor in this as it is in every election. I don't know how someone could deny that. However, I don't know that Wisconsin voters would have voted differently had the election just been based on examining the opposing arguments without any money being involved. They might have, might not have, but regardless, this is what many of them chose. I think it's a horrible decision and I'm happy I don't live there, but it wasn't my decision to make.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Keep spinning those election results and remain in denial. Walker won in a landslide, more than his original number and after having millions spent and a lot of civil unrest to get another election. Well, Wisconsin had that election and lost. Not a word about the millions spent to get the recall so all you can do is claim that Walker bought the election regardless of the exit poll results.
Click to expand...

Ah, and I see you chose not to read the source I linked. Or are you formulating a response to the hard data in the article?
 
So Democrats and unions are complaining about money spent in a special election that Democrats and unions created?

Perhaps they could have afforded a plane ticket to have Obama stop by once.
 
Risky Thicket said:
So you are saying there is no correlation between campaign spending and votes received?
Click to expand...

People on both sides of this were free to donate to the political candidate they wanted to see win. If Walker was able to raise overwhelming amounts of money compared to the other guy, maybe that tells you something as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom