Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Why Walker won in WI, and what Dems need to do right now. [View all]HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)7. That's certainly some of it. It's certainly not simply about the amount of the money
Just on the money there are half a dozen important questions to which we don't yet have answers. And those answers are important to understanding how CU influenced the recall and how popular movements can fight the big money asymmetry.
The unexpected emergence of "Walker Democrats" is a great curiousity and explaining them will undoubtedly require more than one-liners about the amount of money that supported Walker.
Frankly there are dozens of questions that remain unanswered.
Not a few of those questions require serious intellectual investment from the kinds of people who have more knowledge of what dissertation projects in politics look like than how to write a sexy headline or subject line.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, not "so goes the nation" over one state. And if after this he doesn't re-tune, that is GOOD for
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#3
He may consider this a "mandate," but it's quite possible that he will be indicted along with his
Cal33
Jun 2012
#20
Yes, that is true. I do mention that the signature and primary campaign then a short general cam-
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#4
No Manny, but you also don't over-reach before you have the fundamentals on your side. And here they
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#6
Maybe he means that it wasn't necessary for the DNC to directly provide the $500K Barrett requested.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#13
They contributed at least $1.4 million through various means and more would not have helped. Play
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#15
They didn't contribute $1.4 million to Barrett's campaign after the primary. They had the money.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#18
The DNC and MANY OTHERS helped. You risked and lost. Learn from it and move on. No blame games.
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#30
Aren't you one of those who said that the DNC's earlier help prior to the primary was sufficient
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#33
He had a big cash advantage, but that was not the ONLY dynamic and anyone who thinks so is refusing
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#14
Yes, good, fine, like it, it's right. But you're comparing apples to oranges here as I've said.
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#29
That's certainly some of it. It's certainly not simply about the amount of the money
HereSince1628
Jun 2012
#7
Another thought about why Walker might of won. He is not fond of the law, and has a history of
midnight
Jun 2012
#10
You just proved with your own statement the recall was a bad move. Only 27 days to campaign. That
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#16
"Your people" means Wisconsinites in general. The idea of recalling a sitting guv didn't sit well
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#31
We should now all SUPPORT UNIONISM? All of us? Should we oppose the next "free-trade" agreement?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#12
How did you come up with the idea that "free trade" and unionism are not mutually exclusive?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#23
You say, "Obama supports free-trade." Now he does, but not too loudly. This is different from his
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#26
I do not agree that Obama's views have changed. I say that his expression of them has.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#32