quote:Do you actually think money is why Walker won?
Now, seriously, capax, do you actually think superiority in a campaign warchest isn't a serious or even a decisive factor in most political campaigns, ever? C'mon. There's a reason you don't find a successful politician anywhere who doesn't devote major time and resources to that end.
Your guy won, fine, that's cool, but don't go start whitewashing things either. Had the recall succeeded and had it had significantly more money to spend, you know perfectly well you wouldn't be wondering if money wasn't a major factor.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I mean, I completely grant that money is most of the explanation for why Obama won in '08 (although the explanation for his well-funded campaign had a lot to do with his widespread popularity).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't consider money the largest factor - let alone the decisive factor - behind why Walker won the recall election. You need to remember, this is the second time Governor Walker has won the election. He was first elected by a majority that supported his platform and campaign goals. Once in office he accomplish those goals. This is clearly the direction Wisconsin wants to go and a lot of time and money was wasted so this point could be proven once again.
It's not like you can stuff dollar bills in the ballot box. In what way do you believe money won the election for Walker? What could Barrett have done with more money that would have won him the election?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The final flurry of television advertising — with Mr. Walker outspending Mr. Barrett, seven to one — seemed to have little impact on the outcome. Nearly 9 in 10 people said they had made up their minds before May, according to exit poll interviews, with only a sliver of the electorate deciding in the final days of the campaign.
Walker's campaign entrenched his supporters and.. what else? Can it be argued that the "Koch" money made union supporters jump ship in droves? Did seeing a few more anti-Barrett TV ads sway the fence-sitter - even though this was one of the most talked-about, partisan, and arguable the most important election in the history of Wisconsin? Voter turn-out was up.. on both sides.. whose money gets credit for that?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Maybe if you count his popularity with out-of-state Republican party kingmakers.
Don't evade the fact that you're attempting to equate popularity to finances raised. With that line of reasoning Barret was only popular equal to the amount of instate cash he raised. That is to say, not very popular.
And I'll be damned if those "kingmakers" DIDN'T get to vote in the recall.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. But they did get to donate as much as they want for ads, which DO work. If they don't, why do politicians buy them?
Wisconsin is a very divided state. I'f I was a work where they illegally violated their work agreement with me, I'd move.
I am not saying that money is the only reason why Walker won, but to say it wasn't a major factor is moronic.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Nope. But they did get to donate as much as they want for ads, which DO work. If they don't, why do politicians buy them?
They work up to a certain point. The return on TV spots doesn't scale with the amount of money spent on them.
So they're effective to a certain point, and even that degree of effectiveness is likely to be more diminished in a such a highly partisan recall election.
Are TV ads more effective than knocking on doors, shaking hands, lining up interviews with local papers, and speaking in town halls? Such tactics require more volunteer support and campaign savvy than they do cash. How does one establish the degree to which TV and radio ads carried a winning election bid?
I realize my argument about popularity vs. fiances cuts both ways, which is why I don't find it to be a sound metric with which to judge the success or failure of a campaign.
It's also a cop-out to say, "The candidate's platform was bomb-proof and highly popular but they were outspent by the opposition." One must at least allow for the possibility that they were outspent and unpopular. That possibility is even more likely when the margin between the winner and loser is pronounced (like 53% to 46%).
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't consider money the largest factor - let alone the decisive factor - behind why Walker won the recall election. You need to remember, this is the second time Governor Walker has won the election. He was first elected by a majority that supported his platform and campaign goals. Once in office he accomplish those goals. This is clearly the direction Wisconsin wants to go and a lot of time and money was wasted so this point could be proven once again.
Well, if you're framing Walker's first victory as a clear mandate from Wisconsin as a whole...what did he win by, again, two points? Maybe three?
This certainly doesn't mean he didn't win and shouldn't govern. That's how the system works, after all. But the way you're framing things, capax...money wasn't the largest factor (love to see major campaign bigshots from any race take a polygraph on such a statement), Walker's couple point win followed by an enormous political controversy is a sign of what Wisconsin 'clearly' wants, it's a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process-which earlier you called a victory for democracy...again. It's cool that your guy won and you're pleased with that. No beef there. But it reads like your enthusiasm is carrying you to some pretty outlandish claims, as described above.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it was intentional, but 53-47 was if I'm not mistaken the result of 2008's presidential election. By the rhetoric you're using here, capax, this should have been considered a decisive victory for and endorsement of Obama by the American people, and people standing in the way of his enacting his goals should've stepped aside so as not to 'waste time and money'.
Now, since I'm certain you wouldn't agree to that, perhaps you'll see something of the questions people are raising about what you're saying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't consider money the largest factor - let alone the decisive factor - behind why Walker won the recall election. You need to remember, this is the second time Governor Walker has won the election.
Yes. And both times he outspent Barrett by an order of magnitude. You're not a Wisconsin resident; you simply don't understand how impossible it was in the last month to go somewhere without running into a pro-Walker ad. Even the Internet is saturated with them.
quote:Walker's campaign entrenched his supporters and.. what else?
In this campaign, that was exactly what was needed. Did you see the turnout numbers? The key was to entrench your supporters and disenhearten/disillusion the supporters of the other guy, so they'd stay home.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW: it's looking like we did take back the Senate. So at least we might be able to put some brakes on until November, when that ridiculous gerrymandering kicks in.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:[...]how impossible it was in the last month to go somewhere without running into a pro-Walker ad. Even the Internet is saturated with them.
These things are true.
Hobbes
I moved to Madison in March and I've heard/seen exactly ONE pro-Walker ad and none for Barrett. You obviously don't my amazing advertising avoidance skills my friends.
ETA - of course, that's not counting all the lawn signs, which are probably 10:1 supporting the recall and Barrett.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I moved to Madison in March and I've heard/seen exactly ONE pro-Walker ad and none for Barrett. You obviously don't my amazing advertising avoidance skills my friends.
*blink* That...is really, really impressive. I can only assume that you do not watch television, connect to the Internet via a local ISP, or listen to the radio.
I was going to mention the robocalls, too, but then I realized that you only moved here in March and probably aren't on enough lists yet. I've got a VOIP line that serves as my public "landline," and it got 340 calls -- 280 from Walker's people -- in the last week.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of my co-workers have mentioned robo-calls, but my only phone is a cell with a Maui number, so I've been safe.
I don't watch TV at all, and only listen to the radio when I'm alone in the car. I have a six minute commute currently, so 12 minutes a day is all I hear. And I listen to 10 minutes of WPR (from 6-6:10 am) while I'm waking up.
As for the internet, we do connect via a local ISP at home, but I am amazingly oblivious to internet advertising. I believe you when you say it's there, but I never notice it.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's actually a few studies kicking up on wisconsin as a test case for 'drown the electorate' methodology in ad saturation, or what could be called the Wisconsin kingmaker strategy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also worth noting that due to the rules of this particular type of special election, Walker wasn't subject to the same individual donor contribution limits as Barrett.
The Democrats didn't really help themselves, but the playing field was never level in the recall.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: While Barrett has received about 26 percent of his $4 million in campaign donations from outside the Badger State, Walker has drawn nearly two-thirds of his $30.5 million contributions from out of state, according to campaign filings released May 29. Walker has outraised Barrett 7 ½ to 1 since late 2011, though Barrett didn’t enter the race until late March.
quote: Through April, Walker’s top three donors combined gave more than challenger Barrett’s campaign had raised overall. Four of Walker’s top seven donors are out-of-state billionaires, including former AmWay CEO and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, and casino magnate Adelson, who each gave $250,000.
posted
My favorite were the eight billion trillion robocalls sent out to pretty much everyone they could. A lot of them were things like attempts to trick democrats from going out to the polls, stuff like robo messages saying "if you registered for X, this is just a reminder you don't have to go out to vote today totally fine stay right indoors don't go anywhere have a wonderful day "
I am always saddened to see how much this stuff legitimately works, haha
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: While Barrett has received about 26 percent of his $4 million in campaign donations from outside the Badger State, Walker has drawn nearly two-thirds of his $30.5 million contributions from out of state, according to campaign filings released May 29. Walker has outraised Barrett 7 ½ to 1 since late 2011, though Barrett didn’t enter the race until late March.
quote: Through April, Walker’s top three donors combined gave more than challenger Barrett’s campaign had raised overall. Four of Walker’s top seven donors are out-of-state billionaires, including former AmWay CEO and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, and casino magnate Adelson, who each gave $250,000.
A couple of points:
1) the money spent by the campaigns was about 1/2 of the total spent. The other half was by outside groups, where there was rough parity. Meaning the spend ratio was closer to 3.5:1 (rather than 7.5:1).
2) According to your stats, Barrett raised $3 million in state and Walker raised $10 million. Do you really think election outcome would have changed if the candidates had only been allowed to raise money in state?
quote: While Barrett has received about 26 percent of his $4 million in campaign donations from outside the Badger State, Walker has drawn nearly two-thirds of his $30.5 million contributions from out of state, according to campaign filings released May 29. Walker has outraised Barrett 7 ½ to 1 since late 2011, though Barrett didn’t enter the race until late March.
What I find most interesting about this stat is this: take 26% off of $4 million and you get $3 million. Take 2/3 off of $30 million and you get $10 million.
So this means that if you set aside out-of-state contributions entirely, Walker still received, what, more than 3 times the contributions that Barrett did?
So he still would have outspent him. So even if you believe the money-buys-votes theory of campaigning, Walker still would've been able to buy his way to victory. Right?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I let my post sit so long SenojRetep made the same point I did, only more succinctly and with extra points too. Doh.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...Walker's couple point win followed by an enormous political controversy is a sign of what Wisconsin 'clearly' wants, it's a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process-which earlier you called a victory for democracy...again.
quote:By the rhetoric you're using here, capax, this should have been considered a decisive victory for and endorsement of Obama by the American people, and people standing in the way of his enacting his goals should've stepped aside so as not to 'waste time and money'.
It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
The time and money wasted was for a recall based solely on political grounds. This was a blatant abuse of the recall option. Had the political climate been similar in 2003 with the recall of Governor Davis I'm sure it would be a progressive on here crying foul. We can't go back in time 10 years but based on this recent recall fiasco, I think both sides agree that this shouldn't be a common practice. Examples of not stepping aside would be a re-count after the first election, direct initiatives, or a referendum on specific legislation. Those would have been the most appropriate courses of action to be taken by the opponents of Governor Walker.
As for your comparison to the election of Obama, no one called for Obama to be recalled because that would have been stupid. He won and was elected into office. But America elected a president, not a dictator. Obama can't pass legislation without it going through congressional and judicial review. The landslide conservative victories of the 2010 elections are examples of not stepping aside. One can "not step aside" without forcing a recall 18 months after the first election and putting up the exact same candidate to run against the now-incumbent Governor.
The tactics of the far left in Wisconsin have been shown to be yet more questionable after this nonsense. The recall was manipulative and degradative but less shameful than the state senators abdicating their duties and fleeing the state instead of doing the job they were elected to do.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not "a 'waste' for Wisconsin to avail itself of its own democratic process" but that democratic process occurred in 2011 when Walker beat Barrett the first time. Is the union-led left going to call for a recall every year until the candidate they support wins? If that happened every election for every elected official the system would fail. It would be non-stop campaigning and seats flip-flopping mere months apart. We have terms of office and other checks to avoid that very destructive scenario.
This is a good point, but I don't think you can take a principled stand on this issue. Let's say a really bad candidate got elected, the equivalent of a Hitler. Then of course the right thing to do would be to have a recall. You can't say it's absolutely wrong, period, to try to recall an official because the official's policies are abhorrent to you.
So then the issue just becomes, is Walker bad enough to justify recalling him? My sense is that he is, but I can understand a reasonable person with what I'd consider correct principles holding the other view.
You think Walker is the bee's knees. OK. Can you understand why people on what you call the "radical left"--which includes a large enough fraction of Wisconsin that it's pretty weird to call it radical--would say Walker is so far beyond the pale that any and every legal measure for wresting power away from him has to at least be attempted?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There is no major far left progressive political force in the United States, it does not exist.
IP: Logged |
posted
False. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. She's progressive and a scary one at that.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is this a misuse of the recall system? It seems to me, regardless of the result, that it is WHY a recall option exists.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: False. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. She's progressive and a scary one at that.
Care to elaborate? I've never heard of her, although I did just google her to see what scared you so much.....
It's an honest question, not an ambush. I can't promise to agree with you, but I am really curious. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit that I can't think of any far left political force in America that I'd consider "major."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have to admit that I can't think of any far left political force in America that I'd consider "major."
Me neither.
Also, chalk me up as a Katrina Vanden Heuvel googler. Sometimes conservatives kvetch about the ACLU but I wouldn't say they are a progressive organization.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The tactics of the far left in Wisconsin have been shown to be yet more questionable after this nonsense. The recall was manipulative and degradative but less shameful than the state senators abdicating their duties and fleeing the state instead of doing the job they were elected to do.
Funny, I'll bet quite a lot of their actual constituents-not out of state conservative contributors, mind you-probably didn't think the situation was so clear as you're describing. If we're going to be extolling the virtues of democracy on this topic, how's about we start with not letting a given political opponent define what the actions of their rivals are and aren't?
*sigh* Who am I kidding? That can't happen. No, instead it will be a waste of time and money to attempt a recall, but a victory when Walker wins 'for democracy'. The left is 'union led', but I'll just bet you'd bridle at calling Walker's supporters 'outside major businessmen contributors-led'. The executive has to work with the legislature, but isn't somehow violating his duty when he so upsets them that they flee the state.
Almost everything, every word you've said on this subject, strangely coincides with a given person or topic's political alignment left-right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have to admit that I can't think of any far left political force in America that I'd consider "major."
Me neither.
Also, chalk me up as a Katrina Vanden Heuvel googler. Sometimes conservatives kvetch about the ACLU but I wouldn't say they are a progressive organization.
Nor can I unless you count the occasional guy handing out socialist flyers on street corners. And I an familiar with Katrina Vanden Heuval.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Democratic Party at its most radical is Center-Left but largely Center-Right; remove Republican obstructionism and they are also strangely enough Center-Right to Right-Center. Both sides of the aisle are perfectly willing to expand the police state.
The Conservative Party of Canada is arguably more left-wing than the American Democratic Party.
IP: Logged |
quote:The Democratic Party at its most radical is Center-Left but largely Center-Right
As compared to what? Canada? Why is Canada a good metric for the US? I don't know enough about Canadian politics to speak to that comparison but I don't see that it's relevant. The parties tend to balance out so that half the people in the country side with one and hald the other. Any imbalance and the party either has to change to accomadate or become irrelevant in modern politics. What can cause skews is when the median and the mean aren't the same, i.e. one half is more radical in their views than the half on the other side of the dividing line. The tea party may be evidence of that but I'm not really convinced. It seems to me more like the result of the Republican party hitting the point where they need to change: kind of sign of turbulence more than radicalism.
posted
Wisconsin has been political comedy for a while now. of course, now that walker no longer has a reason to magically appropriate cash from out of thin air to keep his hide and whole governmental structures will be hammered into obsolescence and infrastructural rot over the next few years over this radical pay-to-play pogrom
haha god I am so glad I live in a state that doesn't have to deal with anything like what you are going through. enjoy trying to match MI as 'merika's pilot second world nation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want a lot of money, you should have started a group with a generic right-wingy political action group name (Tom Davidson's Americans For A New Prosperity Freedoms Tomorrow), spent a few days spitting out some pablum establishing yourself as a sluice for the tens of millions of out-of-state special interest dollars that conservatives were hurling towards you guys, and then just waited for your big out of state coordinated private donor bucks to roll in.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering my last name, sending you money in Wisconsin would be direly ironic. Enough to make it worth it. I'll get my brother in on it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is estuanian name, yes. We Rimaries feud, long time, like your, how you say, hatfields and mccoys. Is always war between Rimaries and Avidsons
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Democratic Party at its most radical is Center-Left but largely Center-Right
As compared to what? Canada? Why is Canada a good metric for the US? I don't know enough about Canadian politics to speak to that comparison but I don't see that it's relevant. The parties tend to balance out so that half the people in the country side with one and hald the other. Any imbalance and the party either has to change to accomadate or become irrelevant in modern politics. What can cause skews is when the median and the mean aren't the same, i.e. one half is more radical in their views than the half on the other side of the dividing line. The tea party may be evidence of that but I'm not really convinced. It seems to me more like the result of the Republican party hitting the point where they need to change: kind of sign of turbulence more than radicalism.
Hobbes
The Political spectrum is an objective criteria, you look at the voting history, platform and issues of both parties and the Democrats are barely left of center on the average issue.
IP: Logged |
quote:The Political spectrum is an objective criteria, you look at the voting history, platform and issues of both parties and the Democrats are barely left of center on the average issue.
Nonsense. What constitutes the "center" of the political spectrum is anything but objective.
I do however agree with you that the Democrats are center right when compared to the political spectrum in any other developed country or even to the political spectrum in the US a couple of decades back.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
