• 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!

Poll: Wis. gov. has slight edge in approval rating

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
13,061
Reaction score
5,128
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It looks like the public unions don't have quite the support they imagine. Since elections in WI are typically tight, I would expect that once the union picked candidate is known and starts making a name through advertising, the polls will tighten up. But for now, unions have to be worried and doing their best to discredit this.

The poll showed 51 percent of 701 registered voters asked approve of Walker's performance, while 46 percent disapprove. The telephone poll was conducted Jan. 19-22, just after the signatures were submitted to election officials on Jan. 17, and has a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.

According to the poll, Walker would be slightly ahead of Falk, (49 percent to 42 percent), Obey (49 percent to 43 percent) and Barrett (50 percent to 44 percent). But he's leading Cullen 50 percent to 40 percent. Only 61 percent of respondents could give an opinion on Barrett, 44 percent for Falk, 42 percent Obey and 18 percent for Cullen.

Poll: Wis. gov. has slight edge in approval rating - Yahoo! News
 
excellent - this is travel in the right direction as the programs he put into place continue to work. I'm thinking recall stands a good chance of failing, and Wisconsin suddenly becomes a real threat of turning red in the Presidential off of depressed Democrat vote.
 
It looks like the public unions don't have quite the support they imagine. Since elections in WI are typically tight, I would expect that once the union picked candidate is known and starts making a name through advertising, the polls will tighten up. But for now, unions have to be worried and doing their best to discredit this.

Poll: Wis. gov. has slight edge in approval rating - Yahoo! News

I think Walker will probably lose. Once a candidate is named, unions will be funding him with every legal dollar they can. He'll probably have more money to spend than any other candidate for governor in the history of the state. Unions nationwide will be pouring in funds and special interest ads will reign on TV/radio/newspapers.

Unions across the country know they have to win. And they probably will.

Too bad.
 
I think Walker will probably lose. Once a candidate is named, unions will be funding him with every legal dollar they can. He'll probably have more money to spend than any other candidate for governor in the history of the state. Unions nationwide will be pouring in funds and special interest ads will reign on TV/radio/newspapers.

Unions across the country know they have to win. And they probably will.

Too bad.

Walker had a pretty darn nice haul over prior to the recall signatures being submitted. The most ever for a WI governor. one thing is for sure. Both sides will have a lot of money to spend and most likely alot of that money on both sides will be from out of state.

Walker has brought in $12.1 million since the beginning of last year, with about $4.6 million of that raised during the most recent reporting period of Dec. 11 to Jan. 17, the
 
I think Walker will probably lose. Once a candidate is named, unions will be funding him with every legal dollar they can. He'll probably have more money to spend than any other candidate for governor in the history of the state. Unions nationwide will be pouring in funds and special interest ads will reign on TV/radio/newspapers.

Unions across the country know they have to win. And they probably will.

Too bad.
I just can't explain how odd it seems to me that people are sad over the idea that working class people would get together and donate money to further their cause when the wealthy industries are able to spend billions on lobbying efforts. Are we really to act like this is some kind of injustice that working people actually get a little bit of say in politics?
 
I just can't explain how odd it seems to me that people are sad over the idea that working class people would get together and donate money to further their cause when the wealthy industries are able to spend billions on lobbying efforts. Are we really to act like this is some kind of injustice that working people actually get a little bit of say in politics?

I didn't say it was an injustice. It's their right. It's also my right to disagree with them. Or doesn't the street run both ways?
 
I didn't say it was an injustice. It's their right. It's also my right to disagree with them. Or doesn't the street run both ways?
Certainly you're entitled to your opinion but why say it's "too bad" that unions would actually donate money to candidates to support their cause? Just because you disagree with their positions?

I might not agree with you on every position but I wouldn't think it's a bad thing if you donated your money and time on an issue that you believed in. That's supposed to be how the country works. If you're saying it's too bad that special interests and unions both are going to be dumping in tons of money on this race then I can see where you're coming from and agree. We need serious campaign finance reform.
 
Certainly you're entitled to your opinion but why say it's "too bad" that unions would actually donate money to candidates to support their cause? Just because you disagree with their positions?

I might not agree with you on every position but I wouldn't think it's a bad thing if you donated your money and time on an issue that you believed in. That's supposed to be how the country works. If you're saying it's too bad that special interests and unions both are going to be dumping in tons of money on this race then I can see where you're coming from and agree. We need serious campaign finance reform.

Roughdraft! My "too bad" referred to my opinion that Walker's going to lose.
 
Roughdraft! My "too bad" referred to my opinion that Walker's going to lose.
Hey, even genius's like me miss something every now and then, lol.

Can I pretend that I don't believe you and just keep bashing you anyways?
 
Certainly you're entitled to your opinion but why say it's "too bad" that unions would actually donate money to candidates to support their cause? Just because you disagree with their positions?

I might not agree with you on every position but I wouldn't think it's a bad thing if you donated your money and time on an issue that you believed in. That's supposed to be how the country works. If you're saying it's too bad that special interests and unions both are going to be dumping in tons of money on this race then I can see where you're coming from and agree. We need serious campaign finance reform.

it's too bad that liberals still fear the domino effect and interfere in governments they are not a part of out of this irrational fear.
 
If the non-union electorate of the state votes in their own interest, Walker stays. Public employees getting benefits & job security private sector employees can only dream of is not a strong selling point.
 
it's too bad that liberals still fear the domino effect and interfere in governments they are not a part of out of this irrational fear.
You mean kind of like how tons of outsiders spent millions campaigning against gay marriage in California?

Holy ****, who would have thought it works both ways and that you can't just stereotype the other side without i coming back on you?

Caring about workers rights isn't an irrational fear.
 
You mean kind of like how tons of outsiders spent millions campaigning against gay marriage in California?

Holy ****, who would have thought it works both ways and that you can't just stereotype the other side without i coming back on you?

Caring about workers rights isn't an irrational fear.

Yes, exactly like that. Two wrongs are two wrongs.
 
it's too bad that liberals still fear the domino effect and interfere in governments they are not a part of out of this irrational fear.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - King

When people see workers' rights being threatened, it's not irrational to think that they will be threatened elsewhere. It's better to nip the problem in the bud and send a message. It's the same with every other political concern as well including gun rights, gay marriage and other conservative political topics. That you would pretend that being 'liberal' has anything to with such concern and actions is nonsensical and frankly reveals some irrational biases.
 
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - King

When people see workers' rights being threatened, it's not irrational to think that they will be threatened elsewhere. It's better to nip the problem in the bud and send a message. It's the same with every other political concern as well including gun rights, gay marriage and other conservative political topics. That you would pretend that being 'liberal' has anything to with such concern and actions is nonsensical and frankly reveals some irrational biases.

A quote concerning rampant racism used to get public union people to pay more for their benefits is why I can’t stomach you people.

At least the social conservatives had a rational fear of how the courts interpret the incorporation of the constitution and the effect California marriage laws could impact other states.
 
The injustice is that government workers may get lavished benefits that others cannot hope to attain while having those benefits funded by taxpayers. Years ago the up side to being a private sector employee was that you made better wages and had better benefits. The downside was that you didn't have a high level of job security. On the flip side public sector jobs payed lower and had lower benefits but offered better job security.

The public sector is not for profit and it's funded by tax payers. They have a right to unionize but because the government is their employer these unions shouldn't have the right or privilege to extort the government for more money at the taxpayer and state budget's expense. They should have less privileges and limited power when it comes to public sector unions.
 
The injustice is that government workers may get lavished benefits that others cannot hope to attain while having those benefits funded by taxpayers. Years ago the up side to being a private sector employee was that you made better wages and had better benefits. The downside was that you didn't have a high level of job security. On the flip side public sector jobs payed lower and had lower benefits but offered better job security.

The public sector is not for profit and it's funded by tax payers. They have a right to unionize but because the government is their employer these unions shouldn't have the right or privilege to extort the government for more money at the taxpayer and state budget's expense. They should have less privileges and limited power when it comes to public sector unions.

Yes...the first think I think of when thinking Government Job is "lavish"....
 
They have a right to unionize but because the government is their employer these unions shouldn't have the right or privilege to extort the government for more money at the taxpayer and state budget's expense. They should have less privileges and limited power when it comes to public sector unions.

public employees will always belong to a union. The citizens of the government they work for is the union.
 
A quote concerning rampant racism used to get public union people to pay more for their benefits is why I can’t stomach you people.
That you think King was only concerned with racism in that quote is why I can't take your posts seriously. That you tie something everyone does to 'liberals' and then make comments about 'you people' is why I'm laughing at your post.

At least the social conservatives had a rational fear of how the courts interpret the incorporation of the constitution and the effect California marriage laws could impact other states.
What's irrational about thinking that states might continue to arbitrarily take away collective bargaining rights? It seems to me that you just can't respect people who disagree with you.
 
The injustice is that government workers may get lavished benefits that others cannot hope to attain while having those benefits funded by taxpayers. Years ago the up side to being a private sector employee was that you made better wages and had better benefits. The downside was that you didn't have a high level of job security. On the flip side public sector jobs payed lower and had lower benefits but offered better job security.

The public sector is not for profit and it's funded by tax payers. They have a right to unionize but because the government is their employer these unions shouldn't have the right or privilege to extort the government for more money at the taxpayer and state budget's expense. They should have less privileges and limited power when it comes to public sector unions.
What does this have to do with anything? The unions agreed to the budget related cuts that Walker proposed in Wisconsin and he still took away their collective bargaining rights. This is not about money no matter how much people pretend it is. :roll:
 
That you think King was only concerned with racism in that quote is why I can't take your posts seriously. That you tie something everyone does to 'liberals' and then make comments about 'you people' is why I'm laughing at your post.

What's irrational about thinking that states might continue to arbitrarily take away collective bargaining rights? It seems to me that you just can't respect people who disagree with you.

arbitrarily?

no.

public unions workers will always belong to a union. They can always go directly to the voters, which is the union they belong to, and ask for better treatment.
 
arbitrarily?

no.
Yes. When unions agree to the budget cuts that you ask for, then there is no longer a justifiable reason to cut their bargaining rights. It's arbitrary. Sorry.

public unions workers will always belong to a union. They can always go directly to the voters, which is the union they belong to, and ask for better treatment.
Cool. They should also have collective bargaining rights.
 
Cool. They should also have collective bargaining rights.

they do. they can collectively pool their money and try to impact the elections to get better conditions or wages.
 
They already did that in an efficient way - with unions. :shrug:

efficient for whom? The democratic party?

It wasn't efficient for citizens. They found the previous process lopsided.
 
Back
Top Bottom