• 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

For those of u blaming this on outside money I have two things to say 1 the unions did the same thing with budding in outside supporters to inflate protest numbers. 2 outside money was used because if the unions were allowed to recal walker it would set a dangerous president and governors everywhere wouldnt reform anything. I'm imagine if 60 years ago the people of Arkansas d have recalled their governor over school integration? Do you thing many other southern govenors would take that chance then?
 
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?

And I see you fail to recognize the Wisconsin results and are using the liberal talking points today. It is liberals who can be bought no conservatives
 
For those of u blaming this on outside money I have two things to say 1 the unions did the same thing with budding in outside supporters to inflate protest numbers. 2 outside money was used because if the unions were allowed to recal walker it would set a dangerous president and governors everywhere wouldnt reform anything. I'm imagine if 60 years ago the people of Arkansas d have recalled their governor over school integration? Do you thing many other southern govenors would take that chance then?

Most of them didn't until LBJ forced them to.
 
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

If the election were the exact inverse I'd still say that all this election shows is how horrible our governmental system is in that you can buy an elected post when you outspend your opponent 7.5 to 1.

Our government and electoral system is in a sad sad state of affairs.
 
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.

link?


sorry... I'm just not believing you.
 
Last edited:
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.

We don't know how Centrists, moderates and Independents for voted. There are people - whom I call "Dependents" - who will vote the party no matter what. How those people shook out in votes we don't know. The campaign money was spent to convince Independents, Centrists and Moderates and it was spent to reinforce the message to those who had already determined how they would vote.

Most of the money came from out of state. Money most certainly correlates to votes. More money, more votes.

I too am glad I don't have to live in Wisconsin.
 
So you are saying there is no correlation between campaign spending and votes received?

Sometimes not. Keep in mind that the incumbent (e.g. Obama) may travel, speak and campaign using little (or no) outside funding and that nearly everything he says is "news", getting plenty of free media exposure, not often granted to the 'opposition' candidate, that must buy ads to get their message out. Granted, that with two unknowns running against each other, the one with more funding is likely to gain an advantage, but never forget, that in most races, it is the outsider that must spend much more to beat the incumbent.
 
X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections?

Money FACTORS into elections. Money doesn't determine whether or not individuals have their right to vote, and thus determine their governor, taken away.
 
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.

Obama didn't want any part of this cluster****. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Look at it from his perspective. He goes and they win - great, but it's a state that hasn't voted for a Republican for President in almost 30 years (Reagan in '84 was the last time. Even Dukakis won in Wisconsin). He goes and they lose - now he's personally connected to a failure that wasn't his. Dude's got enough of his own failure to deal with without taking on someone else's.
 
Bingo! And because of Citizens United, much loved by conservatives, we have no idea where most of Walker's big money came from.

bottom line is they can't win on a level playing field and they know it. Which is why they support Citizens United, voter role purges, Tom Delay styled redistricting and on and on and on.

I've seen crappy Dem styled redistricting for the same reasons but the collection of these facts I listed above shows that they know that their message fails when delivered on a level playing field.
 
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.

Why did you even bother to post?
 
Obama didn't want any part of this cluster****. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Look at it from his perspective. He goes and they win - great, but it's a state that hasn't voted for a Republican for President in almost 30 years (Reagan in '84 was the last time. Even Dukakis won in Wisconsin). He goes and they lose - now he's personally connected to a failure that wasn't his. Dude's got enough of his own failure to deal with without taking on someone else's.

People are going to vote based upon results generated. Walker has generated positive results.
 
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

The money issue in this case is an excuse, a sorry one at that. Two reasons. One, the results are nearly identical to the 2010 election where the money factor wasn't nearly as lopsided. Maybe 2-1 in Walker's favor with direct contribution and independent spending being about equal. Two, the results also mirror where the polls have been for over a year, well before all this outide money (both sides received large amounts by the way) was even spent. While the money is a factor, the facts on the ground indicate it wasn't the most contributing, not even close.

In my opinion, the Walker victory comes from several factors.

1. The GOP's grassroots ground game put the Dems to shame. Look at the primary, Walker's (uncontested) had more votes than the entire Democratic field combined. That's a HUGE message in itself and rather surprising since the them was his opposition was much more enthusiastic from all the "end of the world" policies Walker had put forth.

And this is the one that I think spells trouble for Obama. The GOP ground game in Wisconsin is a well oiled machine right now with the Democrats hitting a brick wall full force. This will have impact in the coming months as some, if not quite a few, will be quite discouraged. This recall may end up being just one high stakes gigantic political miscalculation.

2. The recall itself. Exits polls indicated that some, though disagree with Walker's policies, diagree more with recalling him for them.

3. Whether you like it or not, his reforms are bearing fruit. No teachers had to be layed off, municipal healthcare costs are down, budgets are moving to the black, appears to be no major disruption in services. It appears that many union members in the Badger state don't necessarily feel the unions are worth dues. Look at the numbers of how many have voluntarily dropped off the union rolls.
 
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, James.
The only one doing that is you.You seem to be under the impression that ads have voter registration cards and can sprout legs and run to the polls and vote or that they point a gun at people and force them to vote a particular way.
If political ads aren't effective, why is sooooooo much money spent on advertising and campaigning?

How much money that is spent on ads is irrelevant to the fact it is only the citizens of Wisconsin who voted.The ads didn't vote, the out of state donors didn't vote.The only thing the ads do is encourage voters to get out and vote for a particular candidate.
 
Last edited:
link?


......

I read it on Jsonline not too long ago. I used up my free 15 articles for the month, so wouldn't be able to find it again. Basically, Walker far outraised Barrett. However, when taking outside groups into account, the spending was roughly equaly.
 
bottom line is they can't win on a level playing field and they know it. Which is why they support Citizens United, voter role purges, Tom Delay styled redistricting and on and on and on.

I've seen crappy Dem styled redistricting for the same reasons but the collection of these facts I listed above shows that they know that their message fails when delivered on a level playing field.

If both sides were equally free to send money to the candidate they'd like to see win, how is this an unlevel playing field? All that should be guaranteed is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
 
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.

It tells me that Citizens United permitted a great deal of anonymous money to be spent on the campaign, most of it on Walker's side. I don't like the fact that anyone is able to now accept anonymous money. It's wrong. It permits corporations and people with deep, deep pockets to have a louder voice than individual citizens. In essence they have to power to influence elections without actually voting or even being residents of the state.
 
I read it on Jsonline not too long ago. I used up my free 15 articles for the month, so wouldn't be able to find it again. Basically, Walker far outraised Barrett. However, when taking outside groups into account, the spending was roughly equaly.

Further liberals want to ignore the cost of creating the recall election and the cost of previous recalls of Legislators, Wisconsin liberals throwing a tantrum
 
I read it on Jsonline not too long ago. I used up my free 15 articles for the month, so wouldn't be able to find it again. Basically, Walker far outraised Barrett. However, when taking outside groups into account, the spending was roughly equaly.

I kind of find it not believable.
 
The money issue in this case is an excuse, a sorry one at that. Two reasons. One, the results are nearly identical to the 2010 election where the money factor wasn't nearly as lopsided. Maybe 2-1 in Walker's favor with direct contribution and independent spending being about equal. Two, the results also mirror where the polls have been for over a year, well before all this outide money (both sides received large amounts by the way) was even spent. While the money is a factor, the facts on the ground indicate it wasn't the most contributing, not even close.

In my opinion, the Walker victory comes from several factors.

1. The GOP's grassroots ground game put the Dems to shame. Look at the primary, Walker's (uncontested) had more votes than the entire Democratic field combined. That's a HUGE message in itself and rather surprising since the them was his opposition was much more enthusiastic from all the "end of the world" policies Walker had put forth.

And this is the one that I think spells trouble for Obama. The GOP ground game in Wisconsin is a well oiled machine right now with the Democrats hitting a brick wall full force. This will have impact in the coming months as some, if not quite a few, will be quite discouraged. This recall may end up being just one high stakes gigantic political miscalculation.

2. The recall itself. Exits polls indicated that some, though disagree with Walker's policies, diagree more with recalling him for them.

3. Whether you like it or not, his reforms are bearing fruit. No teachers had to be layed off, municipal healthcare costs are down, budgets are moving to the black, appears to be no major disruption in services. It appears that many union members in the Badger state don't necessarily feel the unions are worth dues. Look at the numbers of how many have voluntarily dropped off the union rolls.

If money didn't/doesn't matter, why then so much effort to get so much money and then spend all that money? I mean, it doesn't matter right?

I can't believe that we are breaking all records of fund raising for races and people still claim that money doesn't matter in elections. Clearly those running the elections see an incentive else they wouldn't be breaking all the records in fundraising.
 
Last edited:
If money didn't/doesn't matter, why then so much effort to get so much money and then spend all that money? I mean, it doesn't matter right?

Why did liberals spend so much money to create the recall, first for Legislative members and then the Governor? Liberalism lost, get over it
 
Money FACTORS into elections. Money doesn't determine whether or not individuals have their right to vote, and thus determine their governor, taken away.

Hey, if I have the money to buy an election I don't give a damn about voting. If you and I like a mayoral candidate in Wazoo, Montana and we agree to put in 10 million each on the election in Wazoo, who do you think is going to win? Neither one of us live in Montana, but we bought a mayor. We don't need to vote.
 
It tells me that Citizens United permitted a great deal of anonymous money to be spent on the campaign, most of it on Walker's side. I don't like the fact that anyone is able to now accept anonymous money. It's wrong. It permits corporations and people with deep, deep pockets to have a louder voice than individual citizens. In essence they have to power to influence elections without actually voting or even being residents of the state.

There are plenty of liberals with deep pockets too that could have (and may have, I don't know) donated to Barrett. /shrug
 
If money didn't/doesn't matter, why then so much effort to get so much money and then spend all that money? I mean, it doesn't matter right?

I can't believe that we are breaking all records of fund raising for races and people still claim that money doesn't matter in elections. Clearly those running the elections see an incentive else they wouldn't be breaking all the records in fundraising.

From my post:

While the money is a factor, the facts on the ground indicate it wasn't the most contributing, not even close.

I never said anything you claim. I said there were other factors that I think contributed a hell of lot more than the money did.
 
People are going to vote based upon results generated. Walker has generated positive results.

Source? And speaking of source. You still haven't responded to the data in the source I link. Are you avoiding a response? Why?
 
Back
Top Bottom