• 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

“So far, the tens of millions of dollars that have been spent on ads don’t seem to have moved the needle very much,” McCabe said. “Poll numbers haven’t changed much. Walker’s approval ratings haven’t changed. So the tens of millions spent don’t seem to have changed very many minds.
“I don’t think the ads are as effective in this election as they normally are. I actually think a lot of this money will be wasted. I think the election will really come down to who gets out the vote, I think it really will be decided by a ground gain, not the air wars.”
Democrats and Republicans in the state are likely to agree with that assessment. Officials for both state parties maintain that the election will be driven by turnout, and both parties claim large ground operations."

So...the unions mounted this incessant charge to stop the Governor...its been going on for years. Apparently 58% of the state are tired of it and would like to see the government get back to governing again. You know...silly stuff like working on the budget, employment, etc...
 
VanceMack said:
Were they? How much advertising and publicity did they get over the last year and a half? Put a dollar figure to the union protests...go ahead. lets do some real math. the fact is the democrats and unions have been banging this drum for a year and a half. You know what? Maybe the voters of Wisconsin are just smarter than you think they are.
Click to expand...

Yes, Democrats were outspent 8:1. No getting around it.

And of course I never claimed the people of Wisconsin were stupid.
 
NolaMan said:
Why didn't the DNC or other outside Democratic groups pour money into the state? They have the cash, and were perfectly able.
Click to expand...

Beats me. I guess they figured the money was better spent elsewhere, as it appeared that Walker was going to win.
 
Conservative said:
Right, all those previous recall elections weren't costly to the state? Liberal temper tantrums on full display. Liberals lost, get over it and it wasn't due to the lack of funding, it was rather a lack of support for their failures in policies
Click to expand...

How much did it cost California to recall Gray Davis and replace him with Ahhh-nold? Paint it any way you want, but that was taking out a Democrat and replacing him with a Republican.

If you're going to have unlimited corporate spending, you have to have unlimited union spending. You can't say one group is allowed to have free speech, but not others.

I don't expect you to understand this because in your head Democrat=evil and wrong and Republican = all that is good in the world.
 
AdamT said:
Beats me. I guess they figured the money was better spent elsewhere, as it appeared that Walker was going to win.
Click to expand...

So was he going to win in the absence of money -- or was it the money that got him the win? I think that question has not been answered.
 
VanceMack said:
Were they? How much advertising and publicity did they get over the last year and a half? Put a dollar figure to the union protests...go ahead. lets do some real math. the fact is the democrats and unions have been banging this drum for a year and a half. You know what? Maybe the voters of Wisconsin are just smarter than you think they are.
Click to expand...

So what, just put a dollar figure on all protests? I wonder how much in todays dollars MLK's "I have a dream" speech was worth to the pro-civil rights side? How much in publicity was the TPers disrupting Town Hall meetings across the country worth?

It's ridiculous to go down this road.
 
rocket88 said:
So what, just put a dollar figure on all protests? I wonder how much in todays dollars MLK's "I have a dream" speech was worth to the pro-civil rights side? How much in publicity was the TPers disrupting Town Hall meetings across the country worth?

It's ridiculous to go down this road.
Click to expand...

How many city/state resources were used on the OWSers?
 
NolaMan said:
Why didn't the DNC or other outside Democratic groups pour money into the state? They have the cash, and were perfectly able.

And let's not get off subject and pretend that corporations only fuel money into the Republican side. That is patently false.




Perhaps, but still a blow to the state party. They spent a ton of money collecting signatures, campaigning, getting organized. If nothing else, it probably leaves some faction of Democrats in Wisconsin upset with the national Democratic Party for essentially refusing to get involved. I think you will an impact in that regard down the road.
Click to expand...

the unions suffered the biggest blow. they couldn't even get their hand picked women to win the primary, showing exactly where the voters of the state stood on Walkers public union stance.
 
rocket88 said:
I actually support the Senators leaving the state. Their job is to represent their constituents, and the best way to represent them at that point was to prevent a vote in which they would just get steamrolled on the way to "progress." Assuming that a filibuster wasn't an option (I don't know the rules of the Wisconsin Senate), that was the only avenue open to them. If it was the US Senate, they probably would hav filibustered to the same effect.

What was comical was when Walker sent the State Police to their houses. Did they commit a crime? Not last I checked. You could make the argument that they weren't doing their jobs, but in that case they work for the voters, not the Governor.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They need to represent constituents, but they shouldn't try to put a roadblock on legislation by leaving the state and thus legally closing down the state legislature. It prevents the state from getting work done. Fleeing the state to block a vote was very cowardly in my opinion and juvenile. All representation being equal, they are blocking the representatives of others from representing their constituents instead of representing theirs with a no vote. They didn't get what they wanted, so they tried to halt the democratic process in an attempt to overrule the majority and prevent representation of the majority from being legally passed/voted on.
 
Conservative said:
They don't trash the capitol
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting they never make excuses or blame others for their loses and then they always take responsibility for their defeat?
 
digsbe said:
I disagree. They need to represent constituents, but they shouldn't try to put a roadblock on legislation by leaving the state and thus legally closing down the state legislature. It prevents the state from getting work done. Fleeing the state to block a vote was very cowardly in my opinion and juvenile. All representation being equal, they are blocking the representatives of others from representing their constituents instead of representing theirs with a no vote. They didn't get what they wanted, so they tried to halt the democratic process in an attempt to overrule the majority and prevent representation of the majority from being legally passed/voted on.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that both sides, at every level of government need to sit down and do the work. This will require hard stands at times, but also compromise. In fact, I would like to see more compromise. Much more.
 
NolaMan said:
So was he going to win in the absence of money -- or was it the money that got him the win? I think that question has not been answered.
Click to expand...

We can only speculate. All we know for sure is that Democrats chose not to invest huge sums. Maybe it was because they figured it was a losing cause. Maybe they thought that, even if they won, it wasn't worth the cost. Maybe they thought they would get more bang for their buck in other races.
 
rocket88 said:
........... If you're going to have unlimited corporate spending, you have to have unlimited union spending. You can't say one group is allowed to have free speech, but not others. ........
Click to expand...

Frankly, the logic is correct, except you have it backwards. Prior to Citizen's United, there were no limits on what Unions could spend. Or media organizations. They were exempted. Citizens United merely extended the same rules to all.
 
Erod said:
In your defense, the day after isn't the best way to judge folks, either side of the aisle. No doubt. We all hate licking our wounds out in the open.

But this is different in that it was an election that Democrats called and went fundamentally all-in. So the excuses run rather flat. If the money difference is as dramatic as claimed, doesn't that tell you something? People, in general, REALLY backed what Walker did with the public union, even many union members and Democrats.
Click to expand...

That really wasn't where I was going. I wanted to hear what it is that conservatives do when they lose. In other words, enlighten me as to why or how their reactions are different? And of course show us all why conservatives apparently always take the high road. Unless I missed something, that was inferred.

Inquiring minds...
 
AdamT said:
We can only speculate. All we know for sure is that Democrats chose not to invest huge sums. Maybe it was because they figured it was a losing cause. Maybe they thought that, even if they won, it wasn't worth the cost. Maybe they thought they would get more bang for their buck in other races.
Click to expand...

Regardless. Money buys publicity. The anti-Walker publicity, rendered for free by the main-stream media for 18 months, dwarfs anything pro-Walker that was paid for. Just as it was Obama-McCain. Same media bias dynamic.
 
AdamT said:
That's not responsive to my comment. Compare the union states to non-union states and then we'll have something to talk about.
Click to expand...

Look, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe or what someone else will pay you to believe. As an "independent" contractor I wonder what it is that you contract doing, apparently political trolling. Fact is FDR was right in being against public unions and the fact is unions have spent millions and millions of dollars over the past 16 months to kick Walker out of office and lost but you only count the money reportedly spent on this election ignoring that which hasn't been reported or all the money leading up to the recall election. You see, you ignore results and always will yet never claiming one way or another whether you are supporting Obama in the fall.

What liberals will do is accept what they want to accept i.e. the exit polls that claim Obama will win Wisconsin in the Fall but ignoring the failure of the exit polls to actually predict the outcome of the election when CNN stated that the exit polls showed the election too close to call. Which exit poll was accurate? Hmmm, guess it is the one liberals want to believe
 
Top Cat said:
So you're suggesting they never make excuses or blame others for their loses and then they always take responsibility for their defeat?
Click to expand...

Trashing the capitol was a liberal tantrum that has gone on for 16 months. Unions lost big yesterday and will lose big in other states as well as nationally this fall.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Frankly, the logic is correct, except you have it backwards. Prior to Citizen's United, there were no limits on what Unions could spend. Or media organizations. They were exempted. Citizens United merely extended the same rules to all.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Before CU unions could not reach out to non-members using union dues.
 
Conservative said:
Look, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe or what someone else will pay you to believe
Click to expand...

No, I'm just going to believe what's true. And you can't get an idea of union state versus non-union state fiscal situations by just looking at union states. It's pretty basic stuff.
 
digsbe said:
I disagree. They need to represent constituents, but they shouldn't try to put a roadblock on legislation by leaving the state and thus legally closing down the state legislature. It prevents the state from getting work done. Fleeing the state to block a vote was very cowardly in my opinion and juvenile. All representation being equal, they are blocking the representatives of others from representing their constituents instead of representing theirs with a no vote. They didn't get what they wanted, so they tried to halt the democratic process in an attempt to overrule the majority and prevent representation of the majority from being legally passed/voted on.
Click to expand...

Isn't a filibuster largely the same though? One side, or even one Senator prevents a vote from taking place. I don't know if that was or wasn't allowed in WI, but all it does is accomplish the same purpose.
 
AdamT said:
No, I'm just going to believe what's true. And you can't get an idea of union state versus non-union state fiscal situations by just looking at union states. It's pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...

Right to work states have better economic conditions than states where union membership is required as terms of employment. That is reality. What I posted is the projected problems with union pension funds and those public unions are funded by the taxpayers and therein lies the problem and why public unions have no place in this country.
 
AdamT said:
Try as you might to play it down, the Dems were apparently outspent 8:1.
Click to expand...
And who's fault is that? Those tight wad unions didn't want to support their guy....

All the liberals seems to squawk about this morning is how Walker bought the election. Awww... I didn't see that complaint in 2008 when Obama (according to the liberals today) bought the election. If it's that simple, squeeze more money from your donors. :shrug:
 
rocket88 said:
Isn't a filibuster largely the same though? One side, or even one Senator prevents a vote from taking place. I don't know if that was or wasn't allowed in WI, but all it does is accomplish the same purpose.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same thing. It was a way for the Democrats to keep from getting steamrolled -- if temporarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom