HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Analysis: Why did Barrett...

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:21 AM

 

Analysis: Why did Barrett lose and Walker win?

I frequently come to DU to read my fellow DUers' opinions before forming my own, especially on matters of close electoral combat. So it is with the recall election in Wisconsin yesterday and the reasons for Walker's victory and Barrett's defeat.

Selecting a poll option is of course useful, but even more useful to me personally and to DU at large will be an explanation of the reasons for your choice, provided you have the time and are so inclined.

Thanks ahead of time to all who participate. This is only my second DU poll, so please let me know if I need to tinker with the choices and\or their wording.

Charles

ETA: I chose option #8 ("I don't know why", because I'm still gathering information.

ETA: I added a new option #7 ("Wisconsinites felt a recall was inappropriate" to give voice to several responders' choice of "Other" as explained.
23 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Barrett and his allies were heavily outspent by Walker and his allies
4 (17%)
Barrett was too weak a candidate to run against Walker
4 (17%)
President Obama refused to get involved
1 (4%)
The DNC refused to support Wisconsin Dems adequately
0 (0%)
The media failed to present the issues adequately
0 (0%)
Wisconsin Dems failed with their GOTV efforts
0 (0%)
Wisconsinites felt a recall was inappropriate.
9 (39%)
Wisconsin is still a conservative state
1 (4%)
I don't know why (please explain)
2 (9%)
Other (please explain)
2 (9%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

56 replies, 6786 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Analysis: Why did Barrett lose and Walker win? (Original post)
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 OP
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #1
Common Sense Party Jun 2012 #2
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #4
TheWraith Jun 2012 #47
Common Sense Party Jun 2012 #50
RZM Jun 2012 #3
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #6
Quixote1818 Jun 2012 #8
Shrek Jun 2012 #5
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #9
kelly1mm Jun 2012 #18
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #20
kelly1mm Jun 2012 #35
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #40
kelly1mm Jun 2012 #48
EC Jun 2012 #7
GarroHorus Jun 2012 #10
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #13
warrior1 Jun 2012 #11
AsahinaKimi Jun 2012 #12
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #14
Mairead Jun 2012 #15
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #16
Mairead Jun 2012 #36
kenfrequed Jun 2012 #17
pansypoo53219 Jun 2012 #19
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #23
clffrdjk Jun 2012 #32
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #38
craigmatic Jun 2012 #21
truebrit71 Jun 2012 #22
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #25
mick063 Jun 2012 #24
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #27
PeaceNikki Jun 2012 #26
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #29
PeaceNikki Jun 2012 #30
cynatnite Jun 2012 #28
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #31
cynatnite Jun 2012 #34
Kaleva Jun 2012 #33
eowyn_of_rohan Jun 2012 #37
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #43
eowyn_of_rohan Jun 2012 #49
Chan790 Jun 2012 #39
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #45
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #41
yurbud Jun 2012 #42
Mairead Jun 2012 #44
Retrograde Jun 2012 #46
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #52
fasttense Jun 2012 #51
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #54
boxman15 Jun 2012 #53
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #55
HiPointDem Jun 2012 #56

Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:29 AM

1. Self-kick for a little added exposure. I chose #8 ("I don't know why") for reasons

 

that I think are self-evident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:29 AM

2. It seemed doomed from the start as so many Wisconsinites are opposed to recalls.

There wasn't widespread support for or even acceptance of the need for a recall in this case, even among voters who don't like Walker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:32 AM

4. I almost think i should make this a formal choice for the poll. I guess I was

 

taking the fact of the recall itself as a given, a referendum if you will, and asking why Walker survived the referendum.

I sure as hell wish Californians had displayed the same finickiness about recalls when Schwarze-Nazi was installed. Oh well, water under the bridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:21 PM

47. Add to that being outspent and a weak candidate, and it's a bad recipe. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:27 PM

50. And an expensive one.

Yes, the right-wingers spent a LOT of money that now they won't be able to spend on Rmoney.

But I'm guessing it cost us a pretty penny, too, on a bad recipe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:29 AM

3. Other - No consensus for recall

 

Walker is intensely disliked among a segment of Wisconsin voters. But in order for a recall to work, the target must be disliked across the board, a la Gray Davis.

That wasn't the case with Walker. After his election a large contingent of people who already didn't support him became even more hostile, but this didn't really spread to other voting groups. So it ended up being a re-run of the 2010 election and it produced the same results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:33 AM

6. Excellent points. I think maybe I shoudl make this option a formal choice in the

 

poll and I may do it if 2-3 more folks indicate this as the reason. (I think you can edit polls after you've created them, but not sure.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:36 AM

8. I agree

I made similar points last night: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002772356

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:32 AM

5. Barrett already lost to Walker once before

I'm not sure why anyone would expect a different result this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:37 AM

9. Interesting. I suppose I thought of this recall election as

 

a referendum on Walker's tenure. Thus, Walker's support for the anti-union legislation and the imminent criminal investigation might have changed voters' minds, one would assume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:07 AM

18. One may asumme that, however, Walker won by a bigger margin (both total votes and as

a percentage) than he did in 2010. If it was a referendum on his tenure then he is actually more popular now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:11 AM

20. Excellent point. So is your take on this that Wisconsinites simply felt a recall was

 

inappropriate? Or do you think Walker actually did gain in popularity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:51 AM

35. I think that some in WI did not like the recall as a tactic, and others did not like the protests

in Madison last year. I believe that Wi is MASSIVELY polarized now and the rest of the country is likely to follow. I think the middle is shrinking (even 'independents' have visceral reactions to candidates) and that both parties will move to scorched earth policies as working across party lines will be increasingly difficult. As one who has served in local government, I find this distressing. At the local level I think party affiliation is less important (you still need to get the garbage picked up if you are a D or an R) but even there I see partisan bickering. Sad really.

One other factor, not a minor one and one that will be a factor in November, is public employee pensions. Not just WI, but CA, NY, MA also are working on changing pensions. I think trying to protect defined benefit pensions for public employees (at least new hires) may be a loosing issue and drag down otherwise winning tickets across the country. While I understand the arguments why defined benefit pensions are preferred, they are gone for the VAST majority in this country and are not coming back. Call it envy all you want, but that will increasingly be a major issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:11 PM

40. I personally would love to see the Dems move to a 'scorched earth' policy (provided, of course,

 

that the scorched earth is the center-right spectrum of the party .

But I take your point about local government - Republicans want to figure out a way to make a profit out of picking up the garbage and I'm not sure what Dems want to do other than make sure it's picked up

Here's my position on public employee pensions. Public employees typically accepted lower current salaries in return for more job and retirement security. Cutting their pensions now violates the implicit social contract that existed for many years (where public employees take lower salaries in return for greater security). But I think you are right that envy (and its first cousin resentment) is a huge factor that is seldom discussed and probably should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:21 PM

48. I agree that cutting already earned pensions would be problematic and possibly illegal. But for

new hires ....... I think going to a 401k type system is 1) going to happen for fiscal reasons, and 2) politically the pragmatic approach. I comes down to standing on principle and loosing or knowing that the battle is lost and winning. Not a fun place to be in for progressives but is my opinion of the reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:36 AM

7. Many didn't like the recall process

and thought he should serve out his term. Many of the local newspapers even preached this in their endorsements for Walker. Everyone I knew that felt this way, I told not to vote then, if they didn't believe in the recall, then they should not have voted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:37 AM

10. Using the Adlai Stevenson strategy wasn't a good idea.

 

Eisenhower beat Stevenson in 1952 so the Democrats nominated him again so that Eisenhower could beat him in 1956.

They should have gone with somebody who might have been able to beat Walker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:42 AM

13. I take your point, but want to point out that Walker is not fit to lick the dirt

 

off Eisenhower's shoes, imho. Not that I think Eisenhower was that great, mind you, and he has his own anti-worker baggage (busting the Bonus Army in the early 30s comes to mind), just that Walker is so scummy by comparison.

Still, appreciate the historical reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:39 AM

11. any consulation

walker will be indited soon and out of office. That ought to wipe the shit eating grin off is stupid face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:40 AM

12. I am guessing

that there maybe far more Republicans there than Democrats.. Does anyone know how the population there breaks down, in terms of party? Why would any Democrat vote for a Republican?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:52 AM

14. Wisconsin as I remember it from the 90s is a very weird state electorally, because

 

there is this pronounced urban\suburban\rural split, with the urban areas of Madison and Milwaukee leaning heavily Dem, while the suburban and rural areas lean Repig.

Remember that Wisconsin gave us Joseph McCarthy (of "McCarthyism" fame) but also gave us Russ Feingold. Go figure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:52 AM

15. What was Barrett offering apart from being not-Walker?

 

Was he offering anything substantive?

Except among Dem party loyalists there is no party loyalty. That might sound funny, but it's true.

The last time the Dems really offered something major was when LBJ started the Great Society initiative. Carter did nothing--a very honorable man, but not even a liberal. Nixon was the one who pushed for a minimum-income safety net. What did Clinton do? Finished what Reagan started: destroyed what was left of the safety net.

People are pretty much done settling for empty promises. It's time for the Dem bosses to get up off their asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mairead (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 10:59 AM

16. Definitely share your feelings about the overall tilt of politics in the

 

last 30 years.

So are you saying Barrett the candidate was weak (Option #2) or was the failing something larger, in your opinion?

Myself, I saw the election as a 'referendum' on Walker so, in that sense, Barrett was the 'not-Walker'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:51 AM

36. I agree with you: it was a referendum on Walker -- and the Dems blew it.

 

There were so many possibilities, and the Dems seized none of them.

It was a chance for Obama to get involved and say "replace Walker with Barrett so that I have someone in Wisconsin to work with during these next four years as we create a national intiative to yada yada ...." But he didn't. He said nothing, which suggests that he plans to do nothing if he's re-elected...nothing except what he's already been doing, which we could easily do without.

The Dems don't work as a team, the way the GOP do and parties in other countries do. They stand for getting re-elected, and that's about it.

I found it significant that, in '04, only one Dem politician endorsed Dennis's candidacy, even though what he was offering should have had every one of them jumping up and down in the aisles for him. But that would have required them to take a risk, something they abhor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:02 AM

17. there were multiple factors at work.

Including voter suppression. but the level we were outspent and the fact the DNC had to be drug in kicking and screaming were both factors. Barrett running such. Quiet campaign untl the very end also worked against any victory. The candidate should have been louder, more fiery, and a hell of a lot more progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:10 AM

19. mid-west fair-play. no do-overs

and that money thing. also the PRIMARY did not help. we should have had ONE person against him. YES, I AM LOOKING AT YOU FALK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:15 AM

23. Interesting. So Dems should have coalesced around a single candidate earlier, rather

 

than duke it out in a primary? (Just trying to understand your position, not criticizing it.)

Revealing my layperson's status, just who is\was Falk, btw?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:36 AM

32. Cathleen Falk

 

She basically started the recall effort, and had the support of the local unions, but she lost to Berret in the primary 2 months ago.

My opinion is that Berret ran the same campaign that lost him the election the first time and was counting on voters angry with Walker to cross the line and push him over. Sadly that did not happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:05 PM

38. What do you think Barrett should have done differently this time around?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:13 AM

21. Maybe we needed a better candidate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:14 AM

22. Several factors, not least of which was a shit-ton of out-of-state money...

 

..for the future inmate Scott Walker, but also added to the mix was a weak Dem candidate, a sense that it was inappropriate as he hadn't actually broken any laws, and some for seeing that it was an attempt by "the unions" to bully someone out of office...

Regardless, a small majority of Cheeseheads have voted in favour of NOT allowing collective bargaining, and in favour of a bought-and-paid-for Koch-Whore, who will sell of the state's assets to his benefactors at pennies on the dollar, and leave the rest of its citizenry holding the bag...You made the bed, YOU go sleep in it...

Needless to say I think they are all completely fucked in the head, but that's why they let people vote...

(On the other hand the Dems took over the Senate and Walker will be indicited before his first term ends so it isn't all bad..)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:17 AM

25. A most righteous rant (and definitely appreciated). I constantly remind DU

 

that Wisconsin in the 50s gave us Senator Joseph McCarthy. And before Feingold there was this knuckle-dragger named Bob Kasten (who seemed to harken back to the good 'ole McCarthy days).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:16 AM

24. For me

 

Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

All current political debate begins and ends with Fox News.

Certainly an indirect contributer to Wisconsin. People have to embrace the Fox line to embrace Walker, Scott, Haley, West, etc.

Until Fox loses credibility, the plutocracy holds the upper hand in all matters large and small.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mick063 (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:20 AM

27. Interesting. A funny side note: there was a recall election yesterday

 

in the city of Fullerton, California for 3 Fullerton City Council members whose heads were on the chopping block for their inadequate oversight of the Fullerton Police Department before its officers beat a mentally ill man to death (Kelly Thomas).

Last night, in the local election coverage, the local Fox affiliate's reporters and analysts kept calling it a 'Recount election'. I shit you not! They did it so many times, that I was yelling at the TV set before the broadcast was over. Then I realized it was probably a Freudian slip for a guilty conscience

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:18 AM

26. All of the above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:22 AM

29. Hope we get to hear more of your thoughts and feelings on this in the

 

days and weeks to come. You were there and we all salute you.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:23 AM

30. I dunno, the asshole n00b trolls who fucking stalk me are getting annoying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:22 AM

28. It was an election of catastrophic misperceptions...

All that money funneled into the state was used to spin and lie. It worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynatnite (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:32 AM

31. Well, the exit polls suggest that a statistically significant number of

 

voters felt a recall was not appropriate for oversight purposes. DUer PeaceNikki has argued elsewhere that the real problem may have been the timing of the whole affair and that the recall of Walker should have been tied in with the General Election in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:44 AM

34. PeaceNikki made a good point. Doing that might have changed the outcome. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:40 AM

33. I would say it's a combination of "All of the above" to varying degrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 11:55 AM

37. Some reason why election fraud is not on this list?

lol- as if it is not a legitimate issue ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eowyn_of_rohan (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:15 PM

43. I debated whether to include a choice and decided not to, because

 

I think alleging 'election fraud' any time an election does not go our way sort of short-changes the democratic process. Yeah, I know, election fraud short-changes the process too.

But, in this case, the final results fairly closely tracked most of the pre-election polling that showed Walker up by 4-6%.

Definitely a legitimate issue but not sure it is the reason Walker won this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:27 PM

49. what short changes the democratic process is having our votes counted in secret

by machines that are known to flip and mistabulate votes and have security problems that undermine the integrity of elections in which they are used.

http://wcmcoop.com/members/election-protection-gotv-and-a-paper-ballot-on-election-day/
Even Kevin Kennedy, Director of the Wisconsin GAB, doesn't trust touchscreen machines!
Kennedy expressed concern over the municipalities in the Badger State that will use electronic technology without a paper trail of votes. He said those machines have no way of proving the real voting numbers in case of a malfunction....Despite the convenience AVC machines present to older people, Kennedy said the electronic technology’s inability to recover ballots is a potential problem.
BADGER HERALD; State to use scanners to tally votes -- by Yana Paskova; Oct. 27, 2004 http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/10/27/state_to_use_scanner.php

Kennedy: "sometimes you can’t measure the errors with touch screen because there’s no way of knowing what the voter thought they did and what the machine said they did."
www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=25630 (From an interview c. 2001-2002)

Kevin Kennedy, State Elections Board executive director, said that although other states are championing touch-screen voting, he doesn't expect the trend to spread to Wisconsin until manufacturers can provide more verification of the machines' results...."The popular myth is that you can't trust something unless it's paperless, but we do it every day," he said. "The question is: Can we set a verifiable procedure? There are legitimate concerns about security."
By Matt Conn For the Wausau Daily Herald [circa 2001-2002]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:06 PM

39. All of the above except the money.

 

I know that's heresy but I watched a lot of coverage yesterday and that was the one recurring thing that kept coming up in the hours before the polls closed: the number of people who said they'd decided months ago how to vote and that they hadn't been swayed or even paid attention to the ad-avalanche because they'd already decided.

88% of polled-voters said they'd decided how to vote prior to May, 1% had decided in the last day and only 12% had decided since May 1 when the heavy spending roll-out began. This coincides with what we know to be universally-true based on studies of other subjects about message-fatigue. The more you bombard someone with messaging or ads on a subject, the less effective the power of every ad they've seen past, present or future becomes. Run too many pro-Walker ads and people will vote against him because he's the disruptive asshat that's interfering with their ability to watch the local news and prime-time TV. (How many people remember "Head On. Apply directly to the forehead. Head On. Apply directly to the forehead. Head On. Apply directly to the forehead."? How many people did that commercial convince to buy Head On? Not as many as people who swore to never buy Head On because the commercial annoyed the shit out of them.)

Yes, Walker won...but that doesn't mean the money wasn't foolishly spent or that it did make a difference. It may have but there is no basis to assume so outside of the anecdotal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:19 PM

45. Excellent points that seem to contradict the results of this poll. The rural and

 

suburban areas of Wisconsin tend conservative, if I remember correctly from my days there back in the 90s, so I think it was something of an uphill struggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:13 PM

41. "All politics is local." Tip O'Neill

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:15 PM

42. recalls should not be reruns of elections with a choice between candidates.

It should be like an impeachment with the president stepping down and the lieutenant governor filling the position for the remainder of the term.

If the lieutenant governor is of the same party, that is arguably as good or better since the people voted in someone of that party but the state as a whole found them unacceptable.

I wish that had been the case here in California with the recall that put Arnold in office, but when the issue of the governor's performance was clouded by the chance to put an action hero in office, the point of the recall was pushed aside in favor of the freak show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:16 PM

44. How interesting! Another case where exit polling "was off"

 

From the WaPo:

In fact, exit polls show Walker winning 18 percent of Obama supporters — much higher than Democrat Tom Barrett’s 6 percent of Mitt Romney supporters. Overall, the electorate that turned out Tuesday backed Obama by a 51 percent-to-44-percent margin.

Now, all of this comes with a giant caveat; the exit polls initially were pretty far off, showing a close race between Walker and Barrett. Thus, Republicans are casting doubt that they mean much of anything at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/despite-scott-walkers-win-obama-outpolls-romney-in-wisconsin/2012/06/05/gJQA0y3MHV_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 12:20 PM

46. Urban/non-urban divide

Looking at an election results map of Wisconsin last night, it seems that voters in the more urban areas - Milwaukee and Madison especially - were overwhelmingly in favor of the recall, while the less urbanized areas wanted to keep the status quo.

Lesson for November: Obama can't expect to be re-elected just on the big city vote. The electoral college skews in favor of smaller, less populated states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 02:08 PM

52. This exactly matches my memories of Wisconsin politics from the early 90s, the

 

urban\rural split was fairly pronounced.

As for Obama's chances in 2012, I don't think he has too much to worry about, as Romney is pretty much going to have to run the table of toss-ups to get to 270, while Obama only needs to snag one or two to get there (based on analyses I've read here on DU).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 01:47 PM

51. The vote count was rigged by the RepubliCONS.

 

We have proven RepubliCONS will rig elections. We have proven RepubliCONS have rigged elections, and there is evidence they have rigged election in Wisconsin before.

So, I predicted the Dems would lose and they did. Until transparent, fair and accurate voting is implemented again, any election controlled by a majority of RepubliCONS will be rigged. Dems will lose. The RepubliCONS have learned their lesson from 2008. They are not going to allow the Dems to win any races where they controll the counting of the votes.

This is the outcome to expect in all future election where RepubliCONS control the vote counting.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 02:11 PM

54. It's impossible to prove a negative, i.e., to prove that Republicans did

 

not rig the vote. That said, do you have any proof or evidence that they did rig the vote in this election?

The polls taken before voting started also predicted Dems would lose. So accurate predictions say nothing about why the predictions came true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 02:10 PM

53. It's a combination of massive outside contributions and Wisconsinites not liking the idea of recalls

That idea of not liking recalls is legitimate, since Walker has technically done nothing illegal, and even those who supported Barrett would tell you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boxman15 (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 02:14 PM

55. Yes, after a couple early responders to this poll made that

 

observation (about a recall not being seen as appropriate oversight), I modifed the poll to add that choice.

I wish Californians had been as persnickety when it came to the recall of Davis and the installation of Schwarze-Nazi. Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 05:03 PM

56. Isn't that funny? Cali voters *love* recalls, but wisconsin voters, we're told, hate them.

 

I don't believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread